Limiting Damage to Nature and Humans in Oil Drilling

[newstudent]

Hi, I am a new user on scienceforums.net. I am a current college freshman and am taking a class this semester called Nature, Culture, and Politics. One requirement of the course is to submit a short version of a 15 page research paper to an audience beyond my class. I chose to submit my short version on this forum because it is relevant to the topic of ecology and the environment. The paper is about oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic and takes into account environmental, cultural, and political issues associated with oil development. The short version is posted below.

 

Thanks to anyone who reads, comments are appreciated.

 

 

 

Limiting Damage to Nature and Humans in Oil Drilling

The controversy over domestic oil drilling in the United States has raged since thediscovery and development of fossil fuel in the nation. Recently, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon oilrig in the Gulf of Mexico intensified the debate over domestic drilling and its environmental, as well as political, consequences. Yet America's cultural dependence on the fossil fuel cannot beignored even in the wake of such a disaster. While politicians and U.S.citizens clashed over differing views on the future of domestic drilling, the issue of drilling in the Alaskan Arctic gained momentum, attracting both proponents and opponents in environmental and political circles.

 

Supporters of domestic drilling in Alaska and those who oppose the development of oil reserves often present the decision to drill in terms that are black and white; either we help the economy by drilling, or we bring about our own demise by relying on foreign oil sources; either we destroy fragile marine ecosystems or we save the environment. However, such analysis of oil drilling in Alaska fails to take into account the delicate cultural issues surrounding the indigenous people ofthe region and their reaction to drilling. It also fails to incorporate lessons learned from the BP oil spill and the new research and policies that have emerged in relation to domestic drilling. Thus, by examining the aftermath of the BP oil spill, it is evident that offshore oil drilling in the Alaskan Arctic should be evaluated in terms of environmental and political consequences to accurately weigh the impact of oil development on the culture of the region.

 

The BP oil spill may be used as a lens through which to view the future of domestic drilling in Alaska. Through the incorporation of viewpoints that both support and contest domestic drilling, the spill can be examined in terms of ecological and political effects and how they relate to the culture of the region. Parallels can be drawn between the impacts of the spill in the Gulf and how Alaska may be affected in its own environmental and political spheres. Focusing first on the environmental impact of the oil spill, the state of the marine ecosystems inthe Gulf needs to be analyzed and compared to the fate of marine animals inAlaska. While the differences between the marine environments need to be highlighted, the comparison of natural food sources is a similar issue that can also be explored. In the Gulf, the shrimp population holds onto toxins from oilin the ocean water, and leads to a dangerous drop in the shrimp industry. In Alaska, the local peoples depend on whales for a cultural food source, and oildrilling could potentially disrupt this food supply. Learning from the Gulf, environmental issues may be better managed in Alaska, yet the differing climates of the two regions leads to a disconnect in the affect of drilling on native species that needs to be accounted for in future analysis.

 

Examining the political atmospheres of both regions in terms of oil drilling further contributesto the evaluation of cultural impacts on the Alaskan population. The response of local and national politicians to the oil spill in the Gulf confirmed the vital nature of oil for the Louisiana economy, and a similar situation exists in Alaska. The economic well being of indigenous Alaskans is often an indirect result of political support for oil drilling and the revenue it generates. The dependence on an oil-based economy needs to reap optimal benefits for the population while accurately representing their interests in the political process.

 

Critical to the analysis of oil drilling in Alaska isthe review of stricter policies regarding the development of oil reserves and further research on the environmental and social responses of the inhabitants of the region. Taking these developments into account may ensure a safer environment for drilling and provide a better forum for discussion among the native inhabitants of the region. Learning from the BP disaster and following comprehensive evaluations of politics and environmental concerns in the Arctic region offers the most viable option for preserving the culture of Alaska andobjectively dealing with the issue of oil drilling.

[michel123456]

Welcome.

Frankly:

If I had to rate:

Nature 2/10

Culture 2/10

Politics 8/10

Because that looks more to the speech of a politician: you make long sentences that say nothing except what should be done without proposing any solution. You lost 2 points because (1) you forgot to thank your electors and (2) you forgot to say "vote for me". I gave you 2 points in Nature because you showed some interest for 2 regions. And I gave you 2 points in culture because I wanted to show kindness.

 

But if the goal is Politics, you made it well.

I am the one who gets sick with politics.

---------------------------------------------

 

That was not a very constructive comment.

 

Well I don't know what your teacher expects, but if it was me:

Try to construct your speech.

Begin as you did with the situation as it is today.

Put some numbers, they always make a good impression. How many drilling sites in the gulf of Mexico, how many in Alaska, production, etc. Wikipedia is there, use it. Numbers transforms your discourse into absolute and indiscussable truth, even if it is not.

Make a difference between accidental leaks and constant leaks, I think constant ones are not negligeable.

Make a presentation of available means to minimize the damages (new technology, reinforcement of regulations, control, less sites, drilling in safer zones, drilling in shallow waters, etc.)

Make a presentation of other green technologies and make some balance with fossil fuel.

Present the main differences also in matter of peripheral needs: ports, refineries, stockage pipe-lines, etc. and their effect.

Present a strong point of vue, a POV that your teacher agrees with (you'll need some research some older student may provide)

Avoid repetitions.

Don't base your work on press articles.

Cite your references (NOT Wiki but the original sources). Your teacher wrote a book (or published an article): cite it.

If I think of something else, I'll tell you.

Edited November 29, 2011 by michel123456

[michel123456]

----------

Hey newstudent! Are you still alive?

[JorgeLobo]

Suppose this works as an initial try at the freshman but your message is not clear. Recomendation of estabishing "parallels" is vague and has little techncal meaning in conext offered - and the apparent balance concept is hardly novel nor specific enough to be useful. Just what is your central message(s) - in a simple sentence or two.

 

II see this is policy rather than science, but you might be a little less melodramatic (controversy raged and destroy the fragile marine ecosystem) and subjective (neither "damage" nor "nature" has an objective meaning), etc.. Suggest a technical approach -speak of affect and ecology. Shrimp don't" hold on to toxins" if they bioconcentrate chemcal components of oil spil - say so - and give a reference. Offering what appear to be casual, unreferenced statements will harm credibility.

 

 

Drop the contrived (some mixed) metophors - BP as a "lens", "examine" an atmosphere(?), parallels,dangerous drop in shrimp industry (what's a drop and how is it dangerous?), etc,

 

One doesn't make th enviroment safer - one makes driling less impactful. How is the current (assume post spill) state of gulf ecology a paraellel for the current state of marine animals in Alaska (recall tthere's substantial terrestial exposure.