Category: Offshore Oil Drilling

Petroleum and natural gases are formed million of years ago under the immense heat and pressure; these fossil fuels are classified as non-renewable resources. They are limited in a sense that they can only be found in underground reservoirs and beneath the ocean floor; which tells us that they can only be extracted from these locations. The extraction is done by the use of different machines or structures depending on the geology and location. An example of such is an Oil Platform; this is a large offshore structure with different facilities that maximises the production of petroleum and natural gases. It plays a vital role in our society because offshore oil drilling efficiently supplies the demands on these resources for it has higher productivity resulting to much more oil and natural gases extracted per day.

Drilling processes can be done in a long period of time that involves the planning; this includes the first stepping stone of the process – the preparation of rig site whereas they identify the location and choose the safest well path that will encounter the targeted oil and natural gas. The Hoisting system is responsible for the manipulation of the pipe and other tools that will explore the deep surfaces of the crust coupled with a heavy metal that stabilizes and supports it from drilling the ground.

Consequently, as the location or the targeted area has been chosen, the spudding process will occur (the process in which a drilling bed is used in order to dig a hole towards the oil reservoirs). The head of the whole pipe or the drill bed will extend beneath the surface and in like manner, drilling muds are emitted.

The Drilling Mud supervise the lubrication, maintaining the the temperature of the drilling bed and lifting the rocks by cutting from the well bore as well as to maintain the equilibrial pressure of fluids and prevent it from flowing out. At the desired depth, the process of spudding will stop for a moment so that the drilling mud will occupy the space that’ll support the pipe; and correspondingly, a smaller extension will continue the drilling likewise it is supported by the flowing of cement and mud which both are separated by a cementing plug. Furthermore, a second surface casing will continue the digging of the subterranean and as it goes deeper, according to facts, heat and pressure is directly proportional to the depth of a drilled site. The extreme heat and pressure might have destroyed the drilling bed but with the presence of the Blowout Preventer, there is now a maintaining of the regular flow of fluids as well as to avert them from the blowouts or explosions, spill of crude oil, likewise the escape of natural gases from oil reservoirs.

After the installation of the Blowout Preventer, the drilling will continue with the drill bed and pipe operating through the BOP stack. Casing strings will then run and cemented in place to cover up the open hole sections when needed. Lastly, when the oil and natural gas sounds targeted by the geologist are reached and there is a proof or confirmation of their presence, a final casing string may be installed if the seafloor location is suitable for future development; this casing string grants the future secure production of the oil and natural gas.

Oil is an engine for American economic growth. America globally ranks first in natural gas and third in crude oil production. There are two techniques of oil drilling-fracking and offshore drilling. While fracking is a drilling technique to extract oil and natural gas from underneath the earth, offshore drilling is from under the ocean. Offshore drilling, according to Gale, a Cengage Company, is the technique of accessing oil and natural gas deposits in the ocean (“Offshore Drilling”). Offshore drilling involves the exploration and production of oil and natural gas. With an increasing need for economic growth and energy independence, offshore drilling is expanding in the US despite recurring oil spill crisis that affects the environment, human health, and economy. Offshore drilling must stop because it put the environment, human health, and economy at risk.

Offshore drilling significantly impacts the environment. The process of offshore drilling results in the emission of huge greenhouse gases and pollution of water and air. “(…) the routine operations associated with offshore drilling produce many toxic wastes and other forms of pollution” (Natural Resources Defense Council [NRDC] 2). Toxic and chemical substances produced during routine operations are released back into the ocean for oil extraction. These dangerous substances contaminate the water and eventually result in the death and poisoning of marine and terrestrial life. The impact of toxic and chemical substances is long-lasting on the environment.

On the other hand, a largescale oil spill into the ocean has a devastating impact on the environment. The risk of an oil spill is imminent as offshore drilling expands. Oil spills occur during routine operations, explosions, and transportation from the oil field to consumers. It also happens during waste removal after the extraction of oil. “Transporting extracted oil along the supply chain carries a significant risk of spills and other potentially damaging accidents. Waste products leftover (…) can also be hazardous to the environment and the health of marine and terrestrial life” (Gale 1). The oil spill occurring during the transportation of extracted oil and the removal of waste after production significantly affects the environment. A large-scale oil spill may cover wide areas of the ocean that can harm people living, working, and vacationing along with the coastal areas. With the current cleanup methods being used, only a small fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean can be removed. So, the oil spilled into the ocean continues to affect the ocean ecosystems.

In addition to environmental impact, offshore drilling poses a risk to human health. People working on offshore oil rigs are vulnerable to occupational health risks. The explosion can happen either during exploration or production. The explosion may cause injury and death to oil rig workers. “Accidents, injuries, and deaths are common” (Gale 2). Between 2009-2016, twenty-nine oil rig workers were killed, and 1932 were injured according to Gale’s research paper. Despite safety measures taken at the workplace, offshore drilling endangers the lives of rig workers. CNN reported that “the 2010 spill was one of the worst in US history, killing 11 people (…) and hurting human health.” It is undeniable that the oil spill catastrophe is causing human loss and injury. Offshore oil drilling produces toxic substances and radioactive pollutants that eventually poison the seafood that human beings eat.

Offshore oil drilling affects not only the environment and human health but also the economy. Oil is a key component of the American economy. The government subsidizes the oil industry in billions to become energy independent nation. Offshore drilling requires a huge investment, but the risk associated with it is higher than the rewards. Martine O’Malley contends that the “benefits of offshore drilling do not outweigh the threat to economic when an inevitable spill occurs” (1). When an accident happens due to an explosion or hurricane, the economic impact is immense. During the oil spill crisis, oil prices increased, employees, lose their job, and the government spends billions on recovery. When the oil spill is unable to be contained, the tourism and fishing industry suffers greatly.

The tourism and fishing industry generates huge income for coastal communities. Coastal communities heavily rely on tourism, coastal recreation, and fishing. “According to the U.S. Travel Association, tourism in America is a $1.7 trillion industry, with coastal communities representing over $700 billion annually” (McCormick 2). Commercial fishing also generates approximately $35 billion annually. There should be a healthy and safe ocean as it is indispensably important for marine life and local business, including tourism and fishing. Failure to do so will adversely affect the income generated from the tourism and fishing industry.

Furthermore, oil spills affect the economy on that coast of oil spill recovery is so high. The government spends billions on recovery. Oil spill cleanup takes a long time. Oceana’s campaign director Diane Hoskins told CNN that “Almost 10 years after the BP Deepwater oil spill, offshore drilling is just as dirty and dangerous despite pledges otherwise” (“alarming unaddressed deficiencies in offshore drilling”). The cleanup methods currently being used can only remove a small fraction of the oil spilled into the ocean, and uncontained oil spill continues to affect the ocean ecosystems. Only 5 % of the 4.2 million barrels were able to be cleaned up in five years in the 2010 Gulf of Mexico according to NYT. The economy suffers significantly from prolonged cleanup. “The spill (…) more likely costing over $100 billion in lost economic activity and restoration expenses, disruption or destroying hundreds of thousands of jobs” (O’Malley 1). Oil spill results in long-lasting ecological impacts, including marine life and pollution if unable to contain the disaster quickly. The government spends billions to subsidize the offshore drilling industry that could rather be used to generate alternative clean energy. That is why offshore drilling rewards do not outweigh the risks associated with it.

In conclusion, offshore drilling risks oil spills that can damage the ocean and pose risks to the environment, human health, and the economy. Its damage to the environment is irreversible, economic recovery is expensive, and cleaning up the oil spilled is a difficult task and time-consuming. Records from the 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spills show only 5 % of the total oil spilled was able to be removed in 5 years. Human safety, particularly oil rig workers and coastal communities, is at risk. The tourism and fishing industry suffer economic loss in the aftermath of the oil spill crisis. Offshore drilling requires huge investment though the risk associated with it outweighs the benefit. Offshore drilling must stop because it poses risk to the environment, human health, and economy. The future can only be redeemed through halting offshore drilling and pursuing alternative clean energy.

Offshore drilling may be one of the most effective ways we get the oil that fuels our cars, airplanes, and boats. The first oil rig was built in 1938 in about fourteen feet of water. As technology progressed, it was made easier to move further away from shore to pursue undiscovered oil reserves. Although oil is a necessity today, I believe it’s vital that we stop expanding offshore oil and gas drilling operations to protect our precious web of ocean life. Oil spills are an inevitable and unfortunate consequence of this toxic industry and cause extreme harm to the environment. The extraction of oil and gas is a dangerous operation that poses many risks I believe are not worth taking. Offshore drilling must be outlawed because it is incredibly dangerous to extract, increases the chances of an oil spill, and is extremely harmful to the environment.

Extracting crude oil is an extremely dangerous task that puts the safety and well-being of the workers in severe danger. Reports of oil rig sites becoming safer are nothing less than publicized propaganda to sway public opinion. Eleven workers died in the Deepwater Horizon explosion alone. The CDC reported the death rate in the oil and gas industry was about seven times higher than for all workers in the U.S. between the years 2003 and 2010. The danger of these sites could possibly be linked to the complex equipment used to drill. “One reason for this increased danger is the complex equipment needed to drill at such depths” (4). Oil rigs are large pieces of equipment that stretch thousands of feet below the seafloor and aren’t completely foolproof. Any problem with equipment while drilling at such depth could end in catastrophe.

Extreme weather also poses a threat to the safety and well-being of workers. Ice, hurricanes, and storms “pose risks to the functionality of the rigs, and their distance from the land makes it harder for additional rescue personnel to promptly reach the areas in emergency situations” (4). Lastly, increasing the depth in which oil companies are drilling consequently makes plugging an oil leak more difficult. The Deepwater Horizon oil rig was the world’s deepest well before exploding in 2010. BP’s Chief of Operations Doug Suttles admitted that many of the attempts to halt the oil leak failed because workers weren’t used to plugging a leak so deep.

Another reason why we should stop offshore drilling is that it increases the probability of an oil spill. As oil companies begin to exploit more difficult resources, such as offshore oil reserves, and transport oil longer distances, the chance of a spill increases. Drilling at new depths unlocks more opportunities for large oil companies competing to find more oil. However, with greater opportunity comes greater danger and less margin for error. With humans operating these pieces of equipment, there’s bound to be an accident. Less margin for error means workers would have to be nearly perfect while on the job, which is way too much to ask of the workers. As stated in “Ten years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling creeps farther away from the shore”, “The probability of a serious accident, fatality, injury, explosion, or fire being reported grows by 8.5 percent with every additional 100 feet of depth at which an offshore platform operates,” (4). Today oil rigs stretch about 40,000 feet below the seafloor, with the data provided by experts continuing o drill would be completely disregarding the factual data that proves that the risk outweighs the reward of offshore drilling. Drilling with extreme water pressure and unpredictable pressure-filled pockets of gas also increases the risk of an explosion that would gush gallons of toxic oil into the sea.

The last reason we should stop offshore drilling immediately is that it’s extremely bad for the environment. Gallons of toxic crude oil is spilled into our precious oceans every day. There are countless smaller-scale oil spills that occur all the time but aren’t big enough to make national headlines. Excluding the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, over twelve million gallons of oil has been spilled into the Gulf of Mexico between the years of 1964 and 2015. Keeping vital information like this from the public is part of the agenda of those in favor of offshore drilling in an attempt to keep the public backing a completely destructive industry. When oil is spilled into the ocean it destroys the natural flow of the ecosystem. The toxins of the oil seep down into the ocean killing and destroying marine life like the coral reef. Not to mention the hundreds of other animals that rely on the water. For example, the Deepwater Horizon spill polluted about a thousand miles of coastline and disrupted the region’s fishing and tourism industries. Lastly, when the inevitable spill occurs, it will be impossible to clean up a hundred percent of the mess. It’s estimated that only about five percent of the four-point-two million barrels of the oil spilled in the gulf was removed during cleanup efforts. Leaving millions of gallons of crude oil polluting the water for decades.

The oil industry is a destructive industry that has no regard for safety, or the environment. Over the years the industry has become more and more focused on the money and not the harm that is being done. With the risk factors rising it is only a matter of time before another disaster occurs. We as a nation need to stand up to large oil companies and make them stop. We cannot sit idly by and watch as they destroy our oceans and ecosystems. It is vital that we stop offshore drilling because of the increasing danger while drilling, the chances of an explosion or spill are increasing every day and, too much oil is being lost at sea and will damage the ecosystem for decades.

Works Cited

1. O’Malley, Martin. “Don’t Drill Along the East Coast.” New York Times, 2 Feb. 2015, p. A19(L). Gale In Context: Opposing Viewpoints, https://link-gale- com.eznvcc.vccs.edu:2443/apps/doc/A399692391/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&sid=OVIC&xid=418f1d3.
2. Suh, Rhea. “Why We Must Stop New Offshore Drilling”. NRDC, 15 Jun. 2015, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/rhea-suh/why-we-must-stop-new-offshore-drilling
3. Reisewitz, Annie. “Trump’s Offshore Oil Drilling Program – Not in my Ocean “.
4. National Geographic Society, 18 May. 2018, https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2018/05/10/trumps-offshore-oil-drilling-program-not-in-my-ocean/
5. Calma, Justine. “Ten years after Deepwater Horizon, offshore drilling creeps farther away from the shore”, 20 Apr. 2020, https://www.theverge.com/2020/4/20/21228577/offshore-drilling-deepwater-horizon-10-year-anniversary
6. Melina, Remy. “Why Is Offshore Drilling So Dangerous?”, 28 May. 2010, https://www.livescience.com/32614-why-is-offshore-drilling-so-dangerous-.html

Drilling and fracking by oil and gas companies must end in the USA, as nearly one million American wells have been fracked since the 1940s. Now, energy is important, but fracking for oil is not the best way to produce energy, and it brings a great deal of harm to the environment.

Hydraulic fracking is a technique that helps recover gas and oil from shale rock. While fracking is still in its exploratory phase in the UK, it is being used commercially in the US to a large extent. Advocates of fracking believe that if America continues to expand the use of this drilling technique, it could become the world’s leading oil producer in the years to come. But fracking is harmful, and contaminates drinking water all over the country. Yet, oil and gas companies continue to use this form of drilling and are putting Americans at risk in terms of drinking water. Already, over 1000 documented cases of water contamination from fracking operations have been reported. Fracking also uses millions of gallons of water. This water must be transported to the fracking site, which results in significant environmental cost. Fracking also poses a risk that carcinogenic chemicals may escape from the site and contaminate groundwater, and it’s responsible for the degradation of parks and forests. Families that live in areas where fracking occurs suffer from several health consequences, which include nausea, dizziness, headaches, rashes and other diseases. Fracking results in the release of acids, detergents, and poisons that are completely unregulated by federal laws and can have devastating effects on the environment and drinking water.

Fracking can also cause small tremors. Climate experts and environmentalists believe that fracking is not the solution to the world’s energy challenges, as increased use of fossil fuels will only add to climate change. Drilling and fracking must end in the US and efforts should be made to compel regulatory agencies to tighten up the oil and gas industry and to update regulations. Efforts should also be made to change the misconception that fracked gas is clean. It is not. It is a dirty fossil fuel that is negatively affecting our environment and detracking us from turning to clean and renewable energy sources.

Fracking must be stopped to save our parks, forests and water supply. There is no benefit that could be derived from a technique that puts our air, water, and communities at risk. Despite the fact that there are regulations in place that are directed towards protecting these resources, the oil and gas industry always manages to find ways through which they can continue to use techniques that harm our planet and our environment. May the efforts continue to stop such industries from taking advantage of the Earth’s precious natural resources.

In 2010 the BP-operated Macondo prospect in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, killing 11 people and spilling 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf. Since this incident, the whole industry of offshore oil drilling has been judged and closely watched. There are many effects on the environment and the economy, as well as on the everyday people involved with offshore oil drilling. In the following essay, many of these effects will be discussed.

Every year oil rigs spill over 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids and metal cuttings into our oceans, thus polluting them. The pollution caused by these oil rigs is destroying natural habitats, while also killing thousands of them. As of result of the pollution levels in the Earth’s oceans being so high, the pH levels in the water has changed and lead to acidification. Scientist have estimated that by the end of this century, the Earth’s waters could be nearly 150% more acidic than they are currently. Oil rigs that are located on or near ocean reefs – the ones that are spilling these toxic metal cuttings and drilling fluids into the oceans – are not just killing, but are also destroying whole reef ecosystems as a result of these spills. After these ecosystems are destroyed it can take years to restore them back to their original quality, but on some occasions they never.

‘Rigs to Reefs’ is a program run by the US government that is trying to help deal with the destruction of habitats caused by offshore oil rigs. To decommission an offshore oil rig that is no longer in use it costs more than $800,000 to remove, transfer and scrap the oil rig on shore. Decommissioning an oil rig means taking away what could have become a habitat over the time it was in operation. When some of these oil rigs are removed thousands of marine animals lose their home and it causes great damage to the environment around them. The Rigs to Reefs program allows for some of these oil rigs to be turned into a permanent habitat for marine animals. The upper 85 feet of the oil rigs are either towed, toppled in place or removed, leaving the lower portion of the rig to become or remain home to these animals. By turning these oil rigs into reefs the marine life in the area can once again grow, and potentially return back to its original quality and health.

Not all of the effects on the environment due to offshore oil rigs are bad. More than half of the oceans oil pollutants is natural oil seepage, which pushes methane gas into the air and creates oil slicks on the water’s surface that overall has a negative effect on the surrounding marine life. Oil drilling helps to reduce the pressure of underground oil reservoirs, which reduces the amount of hydrocarbon seepage and the amount of methane gas in the atmosphere. Scientist theorize that increased drilling operations around the world could continue to benefit the marine and atmospheric conditions. By increasing drilling activities in areas that have high-pressure underground reservoirs, the marine population would increase, resulting in a better marine environment.

It is a known fact that everyday consumers who buy fuel want lower prices, however, this has always seemed unachievable. Offshore oil drilling allows for these prices to be lower, which will play a significant role in the economic growth of the country as a whole. Oil import will increase and consequently, it affects the overall country’s income. If offshore oil drilling continues at the rate at which it is currently at, the price of fuel will have dropped by 3 cents a gallon by 2030. If fuel prices continue to decrease Ameriprise estimates that every 10-cent change in average gasoline prices over the course of a year equates to about $14 billion in consumer savings (CNN). Consumers saving $14 billion per year would allow for that money to be potentially reinvested into the business.

A positive effect is that having better oil and gas prices reduces the cost of goods and services throughout the country, boosting the economy of small businesses and making it easier for consumers to save money. One of the most cost-effective and direct methods of recovering crude oil is oil rigs and offshore drilling. As offshore drilling is one of the most cost-effective ways to access oil, companies are saving millions of dollars, that is now being reinvested into our economy in the form of sales, and upkeep of these oil rigs.

Offshore oil drilling is a risky, yet profitable business. If the oil rigs are well controlled and up kept, industries will skyrocket and become incredibly profitable. If not, companies and industries lose billions of dollars and become at great risk of their company going bankrupt. In 2010 when the BP-operated Macondo Prospect in the Gulf of Mexico exploded, The Gulf of Mexico’s coastal tourism industry lost about $22.7 billion, and their commercial fishing industry lost about $2487 million. Oil drilling has in the past destroyed industries and company’s names, which overall affected everyday people. After the Deepwater Horizon incident, hundreds of local fishermen and fisheries lost thousands of dollars because the water and fish in the Gulf of Mexico were no longer safe for consumption.

The construction of Offshore Oil rigs has created thousands of jobs for people, however, it is a highly dangerous job. Workers on oil rigs can work for 24-48 hours straight on some day(s), which is a long time to not sleep. During these hours they are expected to operate heavy machinery. If the operator of a heavy machine falls asleep, or their reaction time is too slow, a person or even a group of people could be seriously injured and even killed. Workers on these oil rigs are constantly at risk of injury whether it be serious or minor. Some of the many minor injuries oil rig workers suffer are bruises, muscle pain, and fatigue, which in reality aren’t serious on their own but paired with constant work on top of the injury, little sleep, and lifting or moving around equipment can make these minor injuries major very quickly. Offshore oil rig workers are at even greater risk of serious injuries resulting from burns, falls, exposure to chemicals and even explosions. These serious injuries take the lives of many each year and leave some unable to work. Every year an average of 108 offshore oil rig workers die, on the rig alone. Over a 10 year period, nearly 1,100 workers die, making it one of the riskiest jobs.

The single, standard size, offshore oil rig employes over 1,000 employees, providing a stable income for many families. The construction of offshore oil rigs has created thousands of jobs for people with a variety of work skills. Just in the Gulf of Mexico, the offshore oil industry employs roughly 50,000 workers who work both indirectly and directly with the company’s oil rigs.

As stated in the point above about pollution, 90,000 metric tons of drilling fluids and metal cuttings are spilled into the water each year. If the number of pollutants that are being spilled into our oceans every year continues at this rate, Global warming will begin affecting people more and more. As the world heats up, temperatures will rise all around the world, making some places inhabitable. Either way, humans will suffer, whether it be directly or indirectly. If temperatures rise our food sources will run out, and heat waves will become more severe and frequent. The risk of death and injury will increase because of offshore oil rigs polluting our oceans.

As you can see offshore oil drilling has greatly impacted the world in both positive and negative ways. With a closer look into offshore oil drilling better, more accurate accusations can be made about its effects on everything around them.

As a profoundly thankful citizen for your service and time, I am writing on the behalf of myself and my fellow citizens of New York State. We are concerned with your up and coming reassessment to continue the ban on hydrofracking in the Marcellus Shale region.

Although there are some concerning aspects to hydrofracking, the evidence in favor suggests that these aspects may only be minimal compared to the affluent effects hydrofracking can have on New York. Recent advancements in horizontal drilling and hydrofracturing techniques offers us imperative: economic, environmental, and energy security benefits. The economic prosperity from natural gas extraction has already been felt elsewhere – in our neighboring state of Pennsylvania, which initially saw the economic benefits of the natural gas industry in 2010. In a three-year period alone, from 2010-2012, they averaged 1,650 newly drilled wells per annum and direct employment of more than 23,000 jobs in the shale gas industry (Wheeler et al. , 2015). Since then, an estimated total direct employment ranging in the upward bounds of 100,000 jobs has been created in Pennsylvania alone (Christenson et al. , 2017). Furthermore, the extraction of natural gas has not only led to the creation of thousands of jobs but has also created revenue in the billions of dollars for each shale deposit (Christenson et al. , 2017).

As a state that lies on one of the largest shale formations in the United States and as natural gas production is projected to increase further, these effects are only going to continue to dramatically benefit states like Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, leaving us at an economic loss of opportunity not only as a state, but as citizens of New York. To further demonstrate the progressive benefits of hydrofracking, keep in mind the current environmental situation of climate change. Recent advancements in fracturing technologies, along with the abundant reserves of natural gas that the Marcellus Shale region has to offer, further enable greater access to natural gas. This is of great importance and plays a pivotal role when it comes to the nation’s future of eventually converting to clean energy – it is up to us to set an example. For instance, since the recent surge in supply of natural gas, there has been a decrease in the cost of natural gas by more than 40%, which in turn, has led to a significant shift in the sources of electricity generation (Hausman & Kellogg, 2015).

From 2005 to 2014 alone, the electricity generated using coal significantly decreased. During 2005, the electricity generated from coal was 50%, which then in 2014, was down to 37%, all while the percentage of natural gas used to generate electricity rose from 19% to 26% (Christenson et al. , 2017). Furthermore, during this time, sources of renewable energy used to generate electricity also increased from 2% to 13% (Christenson et al. , 2017). Another point to take into consideration, is how the use of natural gas over coal in the generation of electricity, is ultimately better for the environment. This is the case since natural gas burns far cleaner than coal in terms of the release of greenhouse gases, thus leading to a total reduction in environmental pollution levels including the emissions of: carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and mercury (Swift, 2001). In fact, this would help alleviate the current trend towards extreme levels of climate change by eventually stabilizing global carbon levels, and by reducing the amount of particulate matter in the air. As various states are cautious about hydrofracking, the United States as a nation is currently primarily dependent upon imported oil, coal, and natural gas – this will continue until more states capable of hydrofracking begin to do so. This dependence has the possibility to eventually put pressure on foreign policy regarding imports, and which then in turn, could possibly lead to geopolitical tensions (Deutch, 2010).

Therefore, it is of importance for us as a state with the capability to help alleviate such situation to act accordingly. With the viable and abundant reserves of natural gas New York State contains, we have the power to set an example by helping the United States shift away from imported oil and natural gas by allowing hydrofracking. For example, it is expected that by 2020, 64% of total U. S. energy production will come from some type of natural gas (Christenson et al. , 2017). This in turn, will allow us to improve energy security amongst the nation, all while playing a helping hand in doing so as a state. Overall, helping improve energy security coupled with the effects of economic growth and the environmental benefits, may all indirectly improve the population’s health. I am aware that as Governor of New York you have many responsibilities, but as a concerned citizen, I am asking you to take on this reassessment with as open of a mind as possible. Please consider the evidence I have presented before you for the benefits hydrofracking has to offer regarding: economic, environmental, and energy security issues.

Furthermore, although hydrofracking does offer these benefits, I know it does not come without its health and environmental concerns. Therefore, I am asking that if you do consider lifting the ban on hydrofracking that you do so under some circumstances to allow peace of mind for all citizens regarding these concerns. For example, hydrofracking requires heavy use of freshwater resources, thus there needs to be implementation put into place to allow recycling of fracked water to help alleviate this issue. Also, there needs to be full disclosure of the chemicals being used for hydrofracking to ensure full integrity is met, along with restrictions on the venting of excess natural gas. I believe that with proper implementation regarding these issues we can all experience the rejuvenating effects hydrofracking can have for New York. I would like to express my thanks to you as Governor, and I look forward to the progress that can be made.

Resources are limited. Energy resources which are most effective, such as coal, oil and petroleum are scarce and countries all over the world are searching for alternative methods to replace them. But in the meanwhile, there are many disputes over this fossil fuels. One of these is the north pole. This area, also referred as the arctic has 90 billion barrels of oil, and 44 billion barrels of natural gas liquids in 25 geographical areas. Barrells count as 100 to 200 litres of substance. An average (midpoint average x quantity of barrels) of this would be 150 x 9,000,000,000= 1,350,000,000,000 litres of petroleum. This debate is causing conflicts because the north pole is divided in 6 zones, these consist of USA, Canada, Russia, Iceland, Denmark and Norway. All of this petroleum is not equally divided and it causes debates between countries which aim to realizing which part is from who. The Canadian Arctic was explored in the 1970s and the 1980s. One very important fact to consider is that this oil drilling in the Arctic is causing damage to the ice pillars. This is one of the main causes of overflooding of the seas which affects the cities which are found in a neutral height of land. Greenpeace has started a campaign which is called Save The Arctic. In the following essay I will address 3 points of view which this problem generates: economic, social and environmental.

The economic advantages about drilling this oil are huge. This is because it would be a minimum contrary to the arab oil industry. The arabs control this industry due to the fact that almost all of the oil in which the world runs, in found in their territory. So when they rise the price of oil, the price of stuff such as plastic and car fuels rises. By getting oil, other countries would start to export and it would be a direct competition to the Arab market. This would make the excess of supply cause prices to fall. This could show superpowers against each other in the battle to make a economical benefit out of this. Another thing which drilling oil provides is jobs, economically this is a huge input because it provides an economical base for people in a country. Also it affects other jobs indirectly, such as lawyers, engineers and accountants. Oil industries help economically countries through taxes, for example, Canada’s oil and natural gas industries paid 15 billion dollars to federal, provincial and local governments in the form of taxes annually from 2013 to 2016. This money helps the countries economy and it is used to pay services such as the teachers wages and used also to build hospitals.

The main economic disadvantages are that the process required to dig out this oil are very expensive because it is covered by ice. This is because a pit needs to be installed, which penetrates the ice and another machine to suck the oil up. Once this is finished the oil is divided into a process called distillation of oil or cracking. This process works with the particles of oil and divides them in their uses. This is a very expensive process because it needs huge amounts of heat to dissolve the oil. In addition, in the Arctic the machinery that is used to carry out this process is not found and it needs to be taken all the way up there and this is not a cheap process neither.

A positive environmental aspect of this is that natural gas reduces oil dependence until we find an alternative to fossil fuels. Another positive aspect of this oil drilling is that when the ice is penetrated water is often found and sometimes oil pits are found in the water, this creates pits in the bottom of the ocean that when cleared create coral reefs. The function of the coral reefs is to provide shelter to many fish. To add, oil drilling reduces the pressure of oil reservoirs underground, which greatly reduces the amount of hydrocarbon seepage – and the amount of methane gas in the atmosphere. Scientists theorize that increased drilling operations could continue to benefit aquatic and atmospheric conditions.

As I said before, the oil in the North pole has to be extracted from ice and when this happens the ice pillars are destroyed and sent to the ocean, these, when melted cause flooding. Moreover, this drilling causes pollution, the apparatus used for oil drilling free an arrangement of damaging air pollutants, including methane, particulate matter and nitrogen oxides. These pollutants can form a haze, or smog, in the air and are a direct consequence to the formation of acid rain and the deterioration of the atmosphere which contributes directly to the greenhouse effect and climate change. There are 96,000 active oil and gas wells on public lands, and pollution from these well not only contribute to climate change, but also have been linked to asthma attacks in children and worsening respiratory disease. In six western states, nearly 74,000 people are threatened by pollution emitted from wells, tanks and pipelines. In addition, oil spills, have very harmful results in the Arctic territory and its marine reach. To add, there are various local species in the North Pole that are affected, or could be affected, from the consequences of oil drilling. These include polar bears, snow geese, wolves, ravens, arctic foxes, gulls, porcupines, musk oxen, shorebirds and seabirds, and caribou. As pollution directly affects animal issues, when people search for oil drills they send radio waves to the ground which if they find oil, these radio waves will come back, these seismic vibrations cause problems in the Arctic fauna. These vibrations make animals move from their migrations patterns, this is the case of the polar bears, who are scared and react this way. Oil drilling can produce negative effects in the flora of the North Pole. Plants can be severely affected by seismic vibrations by affecting their growth. In addition, the process of oil drilling affects directly the soil which later causes direct consequences for plants drainage.

The social positive aspects of the oil drilling in the North Pole is that it creates jobs and it supports people economically. When people have money, they are happy and the quantity of jobs created can be massive so many people can be happy. This shows progress as a society because the living standards can increase when new hospitals are built, or houses are made more resistant to the low temperatures. The fact that jobs are being provided also helps the economy of the state/country/province because it has a direct impact on the daily life of people. Having money grants you access to services such as transportation, housing, studies (if needed) and medical assistance. It would even create more jobs to people in charge of building roads leading to the pits which are not built yet.

The negative social aspects are that a debate over countries can be caused because if the USA or any other country can counter the Arabs in selling oil and this generates a conflict between these countries. Another thing that happens due to oil and gas drilling is that oil spills can happen. This can affect people directly because people who live in the north pole are the ones who are usually live in harmony with nature. The fact that nature is being severely affected by the greenhouse effect, which is a direct consequence of drilling oil can get people mad. In addition, oil spills affect people because they can breathe contaminated air. In the Arctic, where fishing is a very used resource to feed people, fishermen, seamen and ship workers can be directly affected by oil spills. To begin with, fishermen and local ship workers can lose their jobs because of the amount of fish killed due to oil spills. Also, their health conditions and of all the people who live in coastal communities can be affected by this. Another negative aspect is that there is land in the north pole which contains high amounts of oil that does not belong to any country. This will create tension between countries who want to exploit the resources in order to get a bigger financial result out of it.

In conclusion, I believe that oil drilling in the north pole is causing conflicts. This is because it is directly proportional to the greenhouse effect which affects everybody in the world and it also affects negatively the health of people who live in this areas. Although I do think that the Arctic can provide vast quantities of fossil fuels which run the Earth I believe that it is much more important to take care of what we have than to think about what could have been. Because the Earth will not continue to be the same if we keep deteriorating it by consuming everything it provides, so we need to prevent getting involved into stuff like this which can deteriorate the atmosphere, the marine life and the human life just to get an economic result out of it. I am aware that drilling all this oil out will generate a healthy competition between the countries which control the oil but it will also generate a debate between them because they all want to sell at the highest price possible.

It must be taken into account that this research is finite and it needs further information in order to produce a complete conclusion.

Because land and space are resources as finite as those resources which they contain, there is no doubt that an expansion in one industry would hinder the ability of another to operate. In the article by James Lovgren, the oil and natural gas industries are vilified for their reckless disregard for the fishing industry and its role in the nation’s – and the world’s – ability to eat. However, this raises a simple question that is tied to human nature. If one is in the business of energy, it would make sense that one would not understand the business of fishing. This alien industry is outside of the energy producers’ realms of expertise, and, for this reason, it is difficult to accuse them of “cavalierly industrializ[ing]” the New Jersey coastline (Lovgren)

James Lovgren certainly hits the nail on the head when he draws the dichotomy of “food or fuel.” By using the coastline for industrial purposes, particularly in the areas with a dense population of fish, the energy producers would drive away both a key source of food and the principal source of revenue for the fishing industry. In fact, these facilities “would require vast no-fishing areas, around both the actual unloading facility and its thirty to fifty miles of pipeline” (Lovgren). Considering that the coastline of New Jersey is about two hundred miles long, the panic felt by those aware of the size of these zones is not at all irrational.

Though oil and gas will remain a part of the world’s energy generation for a long time, modern scientific developments and increasingly impressive feats of engineering are allowing us to create energy through unique, creative and economical ways. Solar and wind are considered two of the most viable alternative energy sources for domestic electricity production (OEERE). Wind farms and solar panels are appearing all over New Jersey, most notably with the addition of wind turbines in Atlantic City (Office of the Governor). Deemed an eyesore by some, this investment in alternative energy by the city has created a more sustainable Atlantic City. Under a plan by the former governor Jon S. Corzine, wind energy production in the state of New Jersey would triple to 3,000 megawatts by 2020 (Office of the Governor). This figure represents about 13% of total estimated energy production in New Jersey.

While it is farfetched to imagine that cars will ever run on wind, automobiles are a very replaceable part of our infrastructure. Cities, buildings, highways, power plants and schools are things that tend not to go away once built, and thus must change with the times to avoid becoming outdated and decrepit. In a time of peak oil, an increase in production is no longer an equally efficacious alternative a decrease in demand. If we can roll over the burden of powering our infrastructure to alternative energy sources, then we will have minimized the role that fossil fuels play in powering something that is not as resilient and adjustable as the automotive industry, metaphorically quarantining oil in the automotive world.

It is not difficult to imagine the degree to which the fishing industry of New Jersey – and perhaps even New England – would suffer if many of these offshore drilling stations were to be built. There is no doubt that the concerns are justified, but the accusations of malice are unnecessary. The motives of the energy producers are to protect their ability to produce and provide their products, something no different than the motives of the fishing industry. Programs within the state government and national government are being put in place, tracing their origins to various interest groups, legislators and people that wish to see changes in our state’s energy production policies. In time, the forces of supply and demand, combined with education about the effects of fossil fuels, will condense the industries of oil and natural gas to the point that such drilling expenditures will not be as worthwhile as they have come to be under the constraints of third-world development.

Because land and space are resources as finite as those resources which they contain, there is no doubt that an expansion in one industry would hinder the ability of another to operate. In the article by James Lovgren, the oil and natural gas industries are vilified for their reckless disregard for the fishing industry and its role in the nation’s – and the world’s – ability to eat. However, this raises a simple question that is tied to human nature. If one is in the business of energy, it would make sense that one would not understand the business of fishing. This alien industry is outside of the energy producers’ realms of expertise, and, for this reason, it is difficult to accuse them of “cavalierly industrializ[ing]” the New Jersey coastline (Lovgren)

James Lovgren certainly hits the nail on the head when he draws the dichotomy of “food or fuel.” By using the coastline for industrial purposes, particularly in the areas with a dense population of fish, the energy producers would drive away both a key source of food and the principal source of revenue for the fishing industry. In fact, these facilities “would require vast no-fishing areas, around both the actual unloading facility and its thirty to fifty miles of pipeline” (Lovgren). Considering that the coastline of New Jersey is about two hundred miles long, the panic felt by those aware of the size of these zones is not at all irrational.

Though oil and gas will remain a part of the world’s energy generation for a long time, modern scientific developments and increasingly impressive feats of engineering are allowing us to create energy through unique, creative and economical ways. Solar and wind are considered two of the most viable alternative energy sources for domestic electricity production (OEERE). Wind farms and solar panels are appearing all over New Jersey, most notably with the addition of wind turbines in Atlantic City (Office of the Governor). Deemed an eyesore by some, this investment in alternative energy by the city has created a more sustainable Atlantic City. Under a plan by the former governor Jon S. Corzine, wind energy production in the state of New Jersey would triple to 3,000 megawatts by 2020 (Office of the Governor). This figure represents about 13% of total estimated energy production in New Jersey.

While it is farfetched to imagine that cars will ever run on wind, automobiles are a very replaceable part of our infrastructure. Cities, buildings, highways, power plants and schools are things that tend not to go away once built, and thus must change with the times to avoid becoming outdated and decrepit. In a time of peak oil, an increase in production is no longer an equally efficacious alternative a decrease in demand. If we can roll over the burden of powering our infrastructure to alternative energy sources, then we will have minimized the role that fossil fuels play in powering something that is not as resilient and adjustable as the automotive industry, metaphorically quarantining oil in the automotive world.

It is not difficult to imagine the degree to which the fishing industry of New Jersey – and perhaps even New England – would suffer if many of these offshore drilling stations were to be built. There is no doubt that the concerns are justified, but the accusations of malice are unnecessary. The motives of the energy producers are to protect their ability to produce and provide their products, something no different than the motives of the fishing industry. Programs within the state government and national government are being put in place, tracing their origins to various interest groups, legislators and people that wish to see changes in our state’s energy production policies. In time, the forces of supply and demand, combined with education about the effects of fossil fuels, will condense the industries of oil and natural gas to the point that such drilling expenditures will not be as worthwhile as they have come to be under the constraints of third-world development.