Offshore exploration has resulted in a number of objections from a number of people, including the government, due to unfavorable social, political, environmental, and economic consequences, but the benefits of the process outweigh the concerns.
Offshore drilling will reduce the oil shortage facing the United States. Most of the energy consumed by the United States is imported as well into the region, which cannot meet the needs of the population. The range of oil measured in the offshore well may be up to 62 million barrels (Bailey). This will be key in preventing the oil crisis in the region. The United States uses 7 billion barrels of oil a year indicating that if the offshore oil is drilling are that it pollutes the environment in case of oil spillage (O’Malley). Consequently, however, the oil spillage are minimal and the effect can be controlled by the use of adequate measures.
Similarly, offshore drilling will result in increased oil production. Because of restrictions in the United States, most of the coastline has not explored with even the latest technologies. This means that there are some areas of the coastline that might be having a lot of oil waiting to be drilled. The potential to tap the offshore drilling is evident with deep water oil field accounting for 25% of the world oil (Bailey). On the other hand, environmentalist argue that offshore drilling will make beautiful places such as Florida look ugly. However, this is not true as most of the rigs are far deep in the see and they are not visible on the beautiful shore. Similarly, most of the United States supports the offshore drilling indicating that the public is in support of the projects (O’Malley). Likewise, the development of technology supports the offshore drilling showing the project is profitable and can result in increased oil production (Freeman). The project for offshore drilling good for the economy but there should be a mechanism to ensure that the process does not lead to the environmental pollution.
Response 1: Posting by Elizabeth
I can see the argument that Elizabeth is trying to put forward, but I do not agree with it. Firstly, the United States is the third largest producing but on the other hand is the second biggest importer of oil after China (Freeman). This mean that it should look for other ways to increase its oil production and offshore drilling is the beat available option. In the paper, Elizabeth tries as much as possible to explore all avenue of putting forward his Ideas by highlighting both the positive and adverse effects of oil fracking or offshore drilling. But from the paper, I can identify that he is of the opinion the offshore drilling should not take place. From this point, I do not agree with her. This is because the United States is the second largest importer of oil and engaging in offshore drilling will result in the reduction of oil prices.
Response 2: Posting by Patrick
I do not agree with the posting by Patrick that the environmental drawback outweighs the benefits of offshore oil drilling. Patrick seems to be missing the point that the United States is the largest second importer of oil and the biggest consumer of oil products in the world. Primarily, the United States spends nearly double what China consumes. For instance, United States oil consumption in 2015 stood at 19,396,000 barrels per day while China’s consumption stood at 11,968,000 barrels per day. This indicates that the United States need to consider another mechanism of producing oil to cater for its massive oil consumption and offshore drilling is the only available option. Furthermore, through offshore drilling, the country can sell the surplus and generate more revenue resulting to economic growth. There are some environmental concerns about offshore drilling, but they can be mitigated by some technologies that have proved to be effective (Fracking Is Harmful to the Environment). The offshore drilling has more benefits to the United States compared to the environmental concerns.
“Fracking Is Harmful to the Environment.” The Environment, edited by Lynn M. Zott, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010132405/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&xid=dab72264. Accessed 16 Mar. 2017. Originally published as “Fracking, Climate Change, and the Water Crisis,” Issue Brief, Sept. 2012.
Bailey, Ronald. “Offshore Drilling Remains a Risk Worth Taking.” Oil Spills, edited by Tamara Thompson, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Current Controversies. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010893209/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&xid=6a4b067c. Accessed 16 Mar. 2017. Originally published as “Weighing the Benefits & Costs of Offshore Drilling,” Reason Foundation, 4 May 2010.
Freeman, Bill. “Fracking Is Not Harmful to the Environment.” The Environment, edited by Lynn M. Zott, Greenhaven Press, 2014. Opposing Viewpoints. Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/EJ3010132406/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&xid=795df9b0. Accessed 16 Mar. 2017. Originally published as “Does Fracking Harm the Environment?”, 12 Feb. 2013.
O’Malley, Martin. “Don’t Drill Along the East Coast.” New York Times, 2 Feb. 2015, p. A19(L). Opposing Viewpoints in Context, ezproxy.vccs.edu:2048/login?url=http://link.galegroup.com/apps/doc/A399692391/OVIC?u=viva2_nvcc&xid=418f1d3c. Accessed 16 Mar. 2017.