I. Has anyone been to Alaska, or will plan a trip to Alaska? Well it’s a land of cold dark weather that doesn’t appeal to most, but Alaska has been a major topic to the government that affects me and you. The Alaska tundra has been in question to drill oil or to protect the precious environment there. Should the Alaska tundra be opened for oil drilling?
II. Should the Alaska tundra be opened for oil drilling?
III. I will analyze this controversy in terms of the following stock issues.
A. Ill: Is there a problem with the American energy supply?
B. Blame: Is the present (non-ANWR) policy inadequate to deal with the problem?
C. Cure: Would opening the ANWR help solve the problem?
D. Cost: Would the …show more content…
B. Con: Opening up the ANWR would only cause more problems that will destroy a beautiful wildlife with only little benefits.
1. Evidence: There is estimated only 6-months worth of oil, and therefore is not worth to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
2. Evidence: With only 6 months worth of oil, there is a low impact from drilling only 1 million barrel a day out of 85 million barrels a day demand. The ANWR drilling will not be enough for a long-term impact on the economy.
IV. Cost: Would the benefits of opening ANWR be worth the cost?
A. Con: Drilling in Alaska will not make any major impacts and will only destroy the environment that will never recover.
1. Evidence: In 2006, oil spill accord in the Prudhoe Bay production in Alaska. There was 265,000 gallons spilled onto the tundra from a British Petroleum (BP) line handling 100,000 barrels per day.
2. Evidence: Environmentalists and former state oil-industry regulator discussed the problematic event that if there was an oil spill in broken ice could be difficult or even impossible to clean up. The nearest coast guard base is nearly 1,000 miles away and the roads are scarce on the Arctic coast for people to come quickly if there was a spill.