With the increased global demabd in oil abd gas, undiscovered areas of the world should be opened up to access more resources. To what extent do you agree?

It is argued that, untouched regions of the world should be explored and drilled to supplement the increasing dependence on oil and gas. This essay disagrees with this statement as this comes at the peril of our wildlands and communities. Analysing the effects as a result of disruption to habitat and death of wild animals will explain this. To begin with, oil and gas extraction is a menace to wildlife. Loud noises, human movement and vehicle traffics from drilling operations disrupt the breeding, nestling and communication of avian species. Besides this, infrastructure built for energy development can also get in the way of organisms. What is more, powerlines, fences, wellpads and roads fragment the habitats of many species, such as the pronghorn antelope and mule deer, which journey across distance to find forage. As a consequence, future energy development, if allowed, could ultimately have major impacts on the abundance of this herd. In addition, it is irrefutable to ignore that, big oil spills are known killers of wildlife. To further explain this, just think back to a decade ago, when an explosion at the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig released over 130 million gallons of crude oil into the Gulf of Mexico. The resulting spill, which covered several thousands of square miles of sea surface killed rig workers as well as marine mammals, including sea birds, turtles and fishes. This disaster, currently remains one of the worst environmental disasters in world history and a further extraction into untouched areas could put the world in a difficult dilemma. To conclude, exploration into untouched wildlands is not the solution to this crisis, as history has shown time and time again that, oil and gas extraction may cause death and disturbance to natural habitats. Therefore, I reaffirm my stance and strongly refute to this approach.