Offshore Drilling Issue
This is an excerpt from the paper...
Although efforts have been made to find alternative fuel sources, at this time the United States continues to be dependent upon oil for the majority of its energy needs. Unfortunately, the nation does not produce enough oil domestically to meet this need. Therefore, the U.S. must import foreign oil from unstable regions of the world such as the Persian Gulf. Studies indicate that the United States imports half of the 6 billion barrels that it needs each year, at an annual rate of approximately $42 billion (Sheet, 1990, p. 35). It has been noted that as much as 50 percent of the nation's current trade deficit is due to this large-scale importation of oil ("Oil and Water," 1990, p. 16). Because of this situation, it has been argued that the United States should make a greater effort to exploit domestic oil resources. Although there are many onshore sites for oil, the most exploitable regions are located offshore, along the continental shelf. It has been estimated that as much as 35 billion barrels of oil may be found along the coastal waters of the United States (p. 16). In order to obtain this oil, new offshore drilling platforms would need to be established, similar to the ones that already exist in the Gulf of Mexico and along the coasts of California and Florida. However, many Americans are adamantly opposed to the idea of building new offshore drilling sites because of the ecological risks which are involved. Because of this public consensus, the U.S. government h
. . .
noting that most Americans want to maintain their accustomed way of life (which is dependent upon oil consumption), yet do not want to see offshore drilling near their own beaches. In Rosendahl's opinion, this is a hypocritical point of view in which it is implied that Americans want to keep getting oil, as long as its not drilled "in my backyard" (Rosendahl, 1990, p. 3).
Those who are in favor of maintaining offshore drilling claim that tankers, not offshore platforms, are the greatest danger in terms of potential spills. In this regard, it is argued that decreasing the number of offshore drilling sites will increase the number of tankers which are required to continue importing America's oil needs. This, in turn, increases the chances for another disaster such as the one involving the Exxon Valdez tanker. In the words of Rosendahl, "the greater the tanker traffic and the farther the transport distances, the higher the risk of spills" (Rosendahl, 1990, p. 3). However, the opponents of offshore drilling answer this claim by pointing out that tanker traffic "will increase either way because - even with drilling - the oil will be shipped to refineries" (Parker, 1990, p. 16). The proponents of offshore drilling also argue that
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Seaboard Nixon, William Sound, Sea Frontiers, Exxon Valdez, Research Service, Oil Water, Refuge Alaska, Florida Americans, Mexico Sheets, Gulf Studies, offshore drilling, oil spills, continental shelf, foreign oil, domestic oil, drilling platforms, drilling sites, rosendahl 1990 3, oil domestic, alternative fuel, 1990 3, offshore drilling sites, dependence foreign oil, outer continental shelf, alternative fuel sources,
Approximate Word count = 2078
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)
|
Customer Service
to Over
32,000 Professionally Written Papers!!!
