should we be aloud to search for oil in the artic national wildlife refuge?

Answer 1

no we shouldn't. we should protect the national wildlife and all precious wildlife.

Answer 2

No.

Wouldn't drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge defeat the purpose of having a national wildlife refuge?

Answer 3

It defeats the whole purpose of having a wildlife refuge and having all of these agencies that protect it..like the one that I work for. If they searched for oil, found it, and started drilling..the amount of debris off of rigs and ships alone would harm the wildlife besides the potential oil spills that could occur. No particular technique would be able to help in the event of an oil spill in a "sensitive area."

Answer 4

No. Estimates vary on how much oil is actually expected to be in the arctic refuge, but even if it's a decent amount, that oil will run out and we will be back in the situation we're in today, only worse. Instead of simply postponing the day when we run out of oil, we should invest the money that would be spent drilling in the arctic refuge into researching and commercializing alternative renewable fuels.

Answer 5

we shouldnt bother with bandaids when we are cutting our own throats. We cant drill our way to oil independance, short term or long term, and we shouldnt be trying. Im not saying that there may or may not be a large amount of oil under there that we may or may not be able to get out and into use without a catastrophe, but that the best new source of energy is efficiency. Read a book called the end of oil, and another called save energy create jobs.

Answer 6

NOPE we shouldnt.

If I were king you would all be on bicycles, and trains, but I'm not the king.

If King Bush were to ask me, I'd tell him to hit the artic national wildlife refuge before hitting the middle eastern, and venezuelan people.

Answer 7

No we should not be ALLOWED to search for oil in a wildlife refuge. But if we did search I am sure it would be LOUD.

Answer 8

No, not at all. Instead of spending money, time and effort into the amount of oil that won't last for more than 20 years, we should be looking for alternative fuels that are more sustainable. And the risks, like an oil spill would damage the biodiversity and fragile tundra ecosystem of the ANWR. it's just not...smart, personally.

Answer 9

I definitely don't think so. We're getting by without it and would only be doing it to make it cheaper. But more importantly, we've already proven that we can drastically cut down on dependency on fossil fuels, but the only reason we don't switch more to them as a society is that Big Oil has a grip on the collar of US government. Lobbyists make life grand.

Answer 10

No. it fairly is a countrywide organic international risk-free haven; something has gotta stay sacred floor, or they'll start to intend to make city parks into waste storage websites- basically somewhat area of them nevertheless... shop on with Osamas suggestion and inflate tires to the right rigidity and that would negate the oil output of ANWAR. besides, did you recognize oil popping out of the Alaska pipeline already is going to Asia? as long as its on a US flagged deliver (whether the deliver is owned by applying a foreign places business enterprise) oil from there could be offered to any united states of america. who's to assert the ANWAR oil does not all pass to China? extra suitable to maintain it for whilst we actually choose it. besides, there are numerous of drilled and capped wells interior the U. S. already we don't would desire to enable them to drill extra wells for an prolonged time. whilst a business enterprise drills a properly they get to function that expected quantity of oil available to their "reserves" on a 12 months end business enterprise fact, hence elevating their inventory value.

Answer 11

no we shouldnt. i think we should have a tighter bond with the middle east where the majority of the oil is so we dont have to find more. or pay these rediculous amounts for gas