Introduction: Pro/Con Speech
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?
I will analyze this controversy in terms of the following stock issues. A.
Ill: Is there a problem with the American energy supply?
Blame: Is the present (non-ANWR) policy inadequate to deal with the problem? C.
Cure: Would opening the ANWR help solve the problem?
Cost: Would the benefits of opening ANWR be worth the cost? IV.
I’m going to tell you some background information before I begin. A.
The North Slope of ANWR, known as “Area 1002”, was specifically set aside by Congress and President Carter in 1980 for oil and natural development. This area is not designated as Wilderness. B.
A land the size developing to 500,000 acres.
The U.S. currently uses about 21 million barrels of oil a day, about 6 million of which is produced domestically. Body
First I will go over the first stock issue; is there a problem wit the American energy supply? A.
Pro: The United States is facing a problem with being too heavy dependant upon foreign oil, rising energy prices, and the country needs to find other means to be more energy independent. 1.
Evidence: According to Colin Campbell from the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, the U.S. oil production peaked to about 11.6 million barrels per day in 1970, and has since declined to about 7.5 million. The demand for the amount of oil the country is relied upon other foreign sources. B.
Con: America is moving forward with decreasing foreign oil dependency. 1.
Example: Since Obama became president “America’s dependence on foreign oil has decreased every year.” a.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document