|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ANWR help please!
Hi there! So I am doing a persuasive speech on drilling in ANWR for an Advance Composition assignment, and I would like to know everyone out there's opinions. More specifically, I would like to know about the not drilling opinions because I would like to know what they think/believe, and why they think that drilling is wrong. Personally I am for drilling in ANWR, but I would like to know what the general ideas are. So thank you for anything you can tell me!
B~
B~
Of course they should not drill there! Why is it that we MUST suck every last drop of oil out of the ground? the money that is being spent on oil research and developement should be going towards alternate fuel sources, not destroying the last natural areas that have been set aside for the wildlife.
People that would destroy a place like this in the name of money sicken me.
Besides, oil is going to run out. We need to find alternatives now..so further oil developement, especially at the cost of areas like the ANWR is really just counter-productive.
Think of it this way, how would you feel if an oil company set up in your backyard?
Last edited by Bones on Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
People that would destroy a place like this in the name of money sicken me.
Besides, oil is going to run out. We need to find alternatives now..so further oil developement, especially at the cost of areas like the ANWR is really just counter-productive.
Think of it this way, how would you feel if an oil company set up in your backyard?
Last edited by Bones on Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:51 pm; edited 1 time in total
Indeed, it is a waste to, once agian, destroy bits of protected nature for oil.
It's protected for a reason, meaning that you can't build nasty factories on it >_>
What's the use of declaring wildlife refuges if they'll be demolished anyway, if someone finds some kind of valuable material...
It's protected for a reason, meaning that you can't build nasty factories on it >_>
What's the use of declaring wildlife refuges if they'll be demolished anyway, if someone finds some kind of valuable material...
| makoto907 wrote: |
| Hi there! So I am doing a persuasive speech on drilling in ANWR for an Advance Composition assignment, and I would like to know everyone out there's opinions. More specifically, I would like to know about the not drilling opinions because I would like to know what they think/believe, and why they think that drilling is wrong. Personally I am for drilling in ANWR, but I would like to know what the general ideas are. So thank you for anything you can tell me!
B~ |
Uhh... what is the ANWR, I'm guessing it's something to do with Alaska or something? If it is, then no, we seriously have bigger problems to deal with and drilling for more oil will not be good. How about we use those methane leaks in the ocean for something useful?
if you want to give a persuasion speech, you need to go about it one of two ways.. either be emotional (as the other commenters in this thread have done).. or present actual facts.. for those, see this thread
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-48092.html
the facts are that ANWR is an area of Alaska that was set aside specifically for oil exploration.. it's a desolate area in the northernmost part of our country that closely resembles a frozen WalMart parking lot about 10 months of the year.. no land is being seized as a pristine pasture
imagine ANWR as a 10ft x 14ft area rug... now imagine setting a coffee table on that rug.. the area that would be affected by drilling is about 1 square inch.. what is covered by one leg of that coffee table.. we're not talking about some massive ecological upheaval here
another fact.. 75% of all Alaskans are begging to open that area up for drilling.. it's not like they're fighting hard to keep that area untouched.. essentially the government (or actually, environmentalists who don't live anywhere near there) are telling the Alaskans that they can't use their land for what they feel is best.. it would be little different than if your grandfather died and left you 10 acres of land.. while you're walking along a remote part of the property you discover a gold deposit.. so you rush down to the nearest town to rent a backhoe and dig it up.. but someone from the Sierra Club overhears your excited story and goes out to your 'pristine wilderness' and determines a wetlands (ie, swampy area) covers 1/10th of an acre, surrounding your gold.. the environmentalist petitions the government to declare your land a natural habitat and you can't disturb your gold deposit
now, I personally think you'll have a much more interesting speech if you state the facts, rather than repeating the standard 'feel good' environmentalist talking points.. and you might make a few people actually think
http://www.frihost.com/forums/vt-48092.html
the facts are that ANWR is an area of Alaska that was set aside specifically for oil exploration.. it's a desolate area in the northernmost part of our country that closely resembles a frozen WalMart parking lot about 10 months of the year.. no land is being seized as a pristine pasture
imagine ANWR as a 10ft x 14ft area rug... now imagine setting a coffee table on that rug.. the area that would be affected by drilling is about 1 square inch.. what is covered by one leg of that coffee table.. we're not talking about some massive ecological upheaval here
another fact.. 75% of all Alaskans are begging to open that area up for drilling.. it's not like they're fighting hard to keep that area untouched.. essentially the government (or actually, environmentalists who don't live anywhere near there) are telling the Alaskans that they can't use their land for what they feel is best.. it would be little different than if your grandfather died and left you 10 acres of land.. while you're walking along a remote part of the property you discover a gold deposit.. so you rush down to the nearest town to rent a backhoe and dig it up.. but someone from the Sierra Club overhears your excited story and goes out to your 'pristine wilderness' and determines a wetlands (ie, swampy area) covers 1/10th of an acre, surrounding your gold.. the environmentalist petitions the government to declare your land a natural habitat and you can't disturb your gold deposit
now, I personally think you'll have a much more interesting speech if you state the facts, rather than repeating the standard 'feel good' environmentalist talking points.. and you might make a few people actually think
The ANWR was set aside for oil exploration!? How strange that they named it the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge then..sounds like an awfully strange name for an area set aside for oil exploration.
If it was set aside for just this sort of thig, then why are they having a problem setting up the oil rigs? Oh that''s right, because it was set up as a wildlife reserve..you speak about facts, but I dont see too many in your post.
Though you do have a couple of good points. I did some more reading about the ANWR and so far the oil companies that are nearby have done a pretty responsible job (it looks that way anyway) of trying to co-exist with the wildlife in the area. Though I think the most compelling argument is that the people in the area want it opened.
Should be interesting to see how much oil is really there..the groups against say 6mths, the groups for say 30 years. I don't think we can really trust either group to tell us the truth though.
Though one argumnt that I have read that I thought was REALLY funny was that more domestic oil will keep more money out of the hands of terrorists. Now at first glance it sounds like a resonable statement, except that 'The War Against Terror aka TWAT' is putting more money in the hands of the terrorists than any oil that america imports.
Don't forget that the Saudis (specifically the Bin Laden family) are primary investors in some of the largest defence contractors in the US. Your own war is feeding them. Every shell, bomb, uniform, tank, missile, everything..is putting money directly into the Bin Laden family's pocket.
If it was set aside for just this sort of thig, then why are they having a problem setting up the oil rigs? Oh that''s right, because it was set up as a wildlife reserve..you speak about facts, but I dont see too many in your post.
Though you do have a couple of good points. I did some more reading about the ANWR and so far the oil companies that are nearby have done a pretty responsible job (it looks that way anyway) of trying to co-exist with the wildlife in the area. Though I think the most compelling argument is that the people in the area want it opened.
Should be interesting to see how much oil is really there..the groups against say 6mths, the groups for say 30 years. I don't think we can really trust either group to tell us the truth though.
Though one argumnt that I have read that I thought was REALLY funny was that more domestic oil will keep more money out of the hands of terrorists. Now at first glance it sounds like a resonable statement, except that 'The War Against Terror aka TWAT' is putting more money in the hands of the terrorists than any oil that america imports.
Don't forget that the Saudis (specifically the Bin Laden family) are primary investors in some of the largest defence contractors in the US. Your own war is feeding them. Every shell, bomb, uniform, tank, missile, everything..is putting money directly into the Bin Laden family's pocket.
ok, let me be more clear for those who don't know how to google.. PART of ANWR was set aside by Congress as an oil exploration area
http://www.anwr.org/archives/political_history.php
| Quote: |
| The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) , finalized in December of 1980, designated the 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain within ANWR a study area, to be evaluated for its oil and gas development potential. The resource evaluation, conducted by the Department of Interior, was released in 1987 and recommended that Congress open the Coastal Plain for oil and gas exploration and development. Since then, Alaska's Congressional delegation, our Governors and State Legislature's have been working toward that end. In 1995, the U.S. House and Senate approved Coastal Plain Development as part of a balanced budget act, but the entire measure was vetoed by President Clinton. |
http://www.anwr.org/archives/political_history.php
Wow, I can see that the people on here are more against drilling. Well, I live in Alaska, so I know how it really is, and what's really going on. The beautiful tree filled paradise with the mountains in the background that you see on tv as being ANWR? Hah, no. It is basically a barren flat area, that is mostly darkness for 9 months of the year. The poor caribou? Their numbers have actually increased since Prudhoe Bay was built. And think about this:: the area that would actually be drilled is less than 2,000 acres. ANWR is 19 million acres, so that 2,000 acres is less than one half of one percent. And finally, the Eskimos that live up there? The majority actually want the drilling. Plus, 75% of Alaskans want to drill. So why should a bunch of people who live in the Lower 48 decide how we should do things up here, when they don't live here, they won't have to deal with it, and it won't affect them?
hmm.. I guess I wasn't much help to you.. sorry about arguing so well for your cause 
anybody else want to explain why drilling shouldn't be done in the beautiful vacation destination of ANWR? and tell us all how soon you plan to visit that region and enjoy nature in all its beauty
anybody else want to explain why drilling shouldn't be done in the beautiful vacation destination of ANWR? and tell us all how soon you plan to visit that region and enjoy nature in all its beauty
I honestly think that there is a way that we can work around nature. If great care is taken in the process, I fully support drilling ANWR.
The impacts, in my opinion, wouldn't be significant at all. It would aid the United States in relieving it's oil dependency on the middle east, which will hopefully give less money to the terrorists.
The impacts, in my opinion, wouldn't be significant at all. It would aid the United States in relieving it's oil dependency on the middle east, which will hopefully give less money to the terrorists.
 |