BIO 220 offshore drilling discussion: a planning guide
Three locations, not one, and they carry different risks. The persuasiveness question is answered by naming what would change your mind.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 10, 2026
What does this offshore drilling discussion require?
The prompt names three locations and they are not equivalent, which is the first thing worth noticing. Drilling in the Arctic, off the coast of California and in the Gulf of Mexico raises different questions, and a post that treats offshore drilling as a single issue has already lost the detail that makes it interesting. The Arctic is remote, ice-covered for much of the year and has almost no spill response infrastructure within reach, so a release there is far harder to contain than the same release in the Gulf. California's offshore fields sit close to dense coastal population and a state with its own regulatory history. The Gulf has the most infrastructure, the most experience and the most existing production. Say which location you are talking about when the argument depends on it.
The case for drilling has to be made properly or the post becomes one-sided in a way the prompt did not ask for. The arguments are energy supply and the security that comes from producing domestically rather than importing, employment and tax revenue in the producing regions, the fact that imported oil arrives by tanker and tanker transport carries its own spill risk, and the practical point that demand exists now while the transition away from it is measured in decades. Add the regulatory response argument: the 2010 spill produced changes in well design standards, blowout preventer requirements and inspection regimes, and it is a legitimate position that the activity is safer now than it was then. Whether it is safe enough is a different question, and separating those two makes the case in favour stronger rather than weaker, because it concedes the point an opponent would otherwise make for you.
The case against is where you can be most specific, because the 2010 spill is one of the best-documented environmental events available to you. Millions of barrels released over months rather than in a single incident. Deepwater releases behave differently from surface spills, forming plumes at depth that conventional response cannot reach. Dispersants used at scale traded surface impact for water-column exposure, a trade whose consequences are still argued about. Effects ran through marine mammals, sea turtles, birds, deep-sea corals and fisheries, with some populations still measurably affected years afterwards. And the economic damage to fishing and tourism was substantial and fell on people who were not party to the decision, which is the observation that leads directly into the next point and is worth putting at the end of this section deliberately.
The distributional point is worth making explicitly because it is the one that generalises. The benefits of drilling accrue to companies, to shareholders, to the workers employed and to the treasury, while the risks fall on coastal communities, fisheries and ecosystems that receive none of the revenue. That is not an argument that drilling is wrong; it is an argument about who decides and who is compensated, and it is a stronger analytical move than asserting that the environment matters more than the economy. A post that identifies whose risk it is, and whether the people bearing it are the people benefiting from it, is doing something more than taking a side. It also gives you a defensible middle position if you want one, which is that drilling can proceed where the people carrying the risk have a say in the decision and a claim on the revenue, and not otherwise.
The final question asks which side you find more persuasive and why, and the why is the graded part. Avoid two weak answers. The first is a balanced conclusion that declines to decide, which does not answer the question. The second is a position asserted with no test attached. The strongest form is a conditional: say which side persuades you, say on what basis, and name the evidence that would change your mind. If you find the case against more persuasive because response capability in the Arctic is inadequate, then a demonstrated capability would change your view, and saying so shows the position is reasoned rather than adopted. That single sentence is what separates a considered answer from a preference, and it is also the sentence a classmate can most usefully reply to, because it invites them to bring the evidence rather than to disagree with your values.
On mechanics, follow your course's posting rules, which in this course are specific and carry deductions: at least one reference with citations, a stated minimum word count excluding references, substantive content rather than agreement, and APA seventh edition. For sources, prefer the agencies that responded to and studied the spill over news coverage, since the technical detail about what was released, where it went and what it affected is documented in the official record. If replies to peers are graded, the most useful reply here is to ask a classmate which of the three locations their argument actually applies to, since most arguments in this thread will turn out to be location-specific once you press on them, and the Arctic in particular changes the answer for a lot of people who had not separated it out.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Distinguish the three named locations rather than treating drilling as one issue.
- 02Make the case for drilling substantively, not as a straw position.
- 03Use the documented detail of the 2010 spill rather than general concern.
- 04Identify who bears the risk and who receives the benefit.
- 05State a position with the evidence that would change it.
- 06Meet the course's specific posting rules.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Course-wide instructions that accompany this question
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation Hi Class, Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts. Contact me if you have any questions. Important information on Writing a Discussion Question Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references) There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article. Include in-text citations in your response Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information Follow APA-7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week. Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references) Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count. Follow APA 7th edition Points will be deducted if the above is not followed Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points. Here are some helpful links Student paper example Citing Sources The Writing Center is a great resource Welcome to class Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to. I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you. Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted. If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations. Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements. Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week. I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course! Exit Grid View List View BIO 220 Week 6 Discussion 2 Based on the 2010 British Petroleum (BP) oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, provide reasons both for drilling and against drilling in these locations. Excellent Point range: 90–100 Good Point range: 80–89 Fair Point range: 70–79 Poor Point range: 0–69 In 4 or 5 sentences, describe the anatomy of the basic unit of the nervous sytem, the neuron. Include each part of the neuron and a general overview of electrical impulse conduction, the pathway it travels, and the net result at the termination of the impulse. Be specific and provide examples. 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%) The response accurately and clearly describes in detail the anatomy of the neuron. The response accurately and clearly describes in detail each part of the neuron, and it includes a detailed explanation of the general overview of electrical impulse conduction, the pathway it travels, and the net result at the termination of the impulse. Examples fully support the response provided. 11 (14.67%) – 11 (14.67%) The response accurately describes the anatomy of the neuron. The response accurately describes each part of the neuron, and it includes a general overview of electrical impulse conduction, the pathway it travels, and the net result at the termination of the impulse. Examples support the response provided. 10 (13.33%) – 10 (13.33%) The response provides an inaccurate or vague description of the anatomy of the neuron. The response inaccurately or vaguely describes each part of the neuron, and it includes an inaccurate or vague overview of electrical impulse conduction, the pathway it travels, and the net result at the termination of the impulse. Examples vaguely support the response provided. 0 (0%) – 9 (12%) The response provides an inaccurate or incomplete description of the anatomy of the neuron, or is missing. The response inaccurately or incompletely describes each part of the neuron, and it includes an inaccurate or vague overview of electrical impulse conduction, the pathway it travels, and the net result at the termination of the impulse, or is missing. Examples do not support the response provided, or is missing. Answer the following (listing is acceptable for these questions): a. What are the major components that make up the subcortical structures? b. Which component plays a role in learning, memory, and addiction? c. What are the two key neurotransmitters located in the nigra striatal region of the brain that play a major role in motor control? 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%) The response accurately and clearly details the major components that make up the subcortical structures. The response accurately and clearly details which component plays a role in learning, memory, and addiction. The response accurately and clearly identifies the two neurotransmitters located in the nigra striatal region of the brain that play a major role in motor control. 11 (14.67%) – 11 (14.67%) The response accurately identifies the major components that make up the subcortical structures. The response accurately identifies which component plays a role in learning, memory, and addiction. The response accurately identifies the two neurotransmitters located in the nigra striatal region of the brain that play a major role in motor control. 10 (13.33%) – 10 (13.33%) The response inaccurately identifies the major components that make up the subcortical structures. The response inaccurately identifies which component plays a role in learning, memory, and addiction. The response inaccurately identifies two neurotransmitters located in the nigra striatal region of the brain that play a major role in motor control. 0 (0%) – 9 (12%) The response inaccurately and incompletely identifies the major components that make up the subcortical structures, or is missing. The response inaccurately and incompletely identifies which component plays a role in learning, memory, and addiction, or is missing. The response inaccurately and incompletely identifies two neurotransmitters in the nigra striatal region of the brain that play a major role in motor control, or is missing. In 3 or 4 sentences, explain how glia cells function in the central nervous system. Be specific and provide examples. 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%) The response accurately and clearly explains in detail how glia cells function in the central nervous system. Examples fully support the response provided. 11 (14.67%) – 11 (14.67%) The response accurately explains how glia cells function in the central nervous system. Examples support the response provided. 10 (13.33%) – 10 (13.33%) The response inaccurately or vaguely explains how glia cells function in the central nervous system. Examples inaccurately or vaguely support the response provided. 0 (0%) – 9 (12%) The response inaccurately and vaguely explains how glia cells function in the central nervous system, or is missing. Examples do not support the response provided, or is missing. The synapse is an area between two neurons that allows for chemical communication. In 3 or 4 sentences, explain what part of the neurons are communicating with each other and in which direction does this communication occur? Be specific. 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%) The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the part of the neurons that communicate with each other and the direction in which this communication occurs. 11 (14.67%) – 11 (14.67%) The response accurately explains the part of the neurons that communicate with each other and the direction in which this communication occurs. 10 (13.33%) – 10 (13.33%) The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the part of the neurons that communicate with each other and the direction in which this communication occurs. 0 (0%) – 9 (12%) The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the part of the neurons that communicate with each other and the direction in which this communication occurs, or is missing. In 3–5 sentences, explain the concept of “neuroplasticity.” Be specific and provide examples. 12 (16%) – 13 (17.33%) The response accurately and clearly explains in detail the concept of neuroplasticity. Examples provided fully support the response provided. 11 (14.67%) – 11 (14.67%) The response accurately explains the concept of neuroplasticity. Examples provided support the response provided. 10 (13.33%) – 10 (13.33%) The response inaccurately or vaguely explains the concept of neuroplasticity. Examples inaccurately or vaguely support the response provided. 0 (0%) – 9 (12%) The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the concept of neuroplasticity, or is missing. Examples do not support the response provided, or is missing. Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 (6.67%) – 5 (6.67%) Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 (5.33%) – 4 (5.33%) Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 (4.67%) – 3.5 (4.67%) Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2.67%) Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, 5 (6.67%) – 5 (6.67%) Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 (5.33%) – 4 (5.33%) Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 (4.67%) – 3.5 (4.67%) Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 0 (0%) – 2 (2.67%) Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. Total Points: 75
Both sides, then a position with a reason
- 01Reasons in favour of drilling in the named locations.
- 02Reasons against drilling in the named locations.
- 03A statement of which side you find more persuasive.
- 04The reasons for that judgement.
- 05At least one reference with citations, in APA seventh edition.
Locations, the case for, the case against, your view
Three locations, three risks
Distinguish the Arctic, California and the Gulf by response capability, proximity to population and existing infrastructure.
The case for
Energy supply, employment and revenue, tanker transport risk, current demand, and post-2010 regulation.
The case against
Use the documented scale, duration, deepwater behaviour, dispersant trade-off and ecological and economic effects of the 2010 spill.
Who bears the risk
Set out the distribution of benefit and risk, and what that implies about how the decision should be made.
Your position
State which side persuades you, on what basis, and what evidence would change it.
Where the spill and drilling evidence sits
Recommended databases
- NOAA's Office of Response and Restoration records for the 2010 spill
- Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry profiles for petroleum constituents
- PubMed Central for research on long-term ecological effects and dispersant use
- Energy agency data for production and import figures, for the case in favour
Search sequence
- 1.Find the documented volume and duration of the 2010 release before writing anything.
- 2.Look up what made the deepwater release different from a surface spill.
- 3.Search for long-term effects on at least one named population or habitat.
- 4.Find one production or import figure to support the energy security argument.
- 5.Check what regulatory changes followed 2010, so the case in favour is current.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill
NOAA Office of Response and Restoration · 2024
The official record of what was released, over what period and what it affected. The primary source for the case against, and more precise than any news account.
- 02
Toxicological Profiles
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry · 2025
Profiles for petroleum constituents give the exposure and toxicity detail behind the ecological argument, rather than leaving it as a general claim about pollution.
- 03
Environmental neurodevelopment toxicity from the perspective of Bronfenbrenner's bioecological model: a case study of toxic metals
PubMed Central · 2023
A worked example of tracing a contaminant from release to human effect, which is the structure your argument about coastal communities needs.
- 04
Time lags in environmental governance: A critical review
PubMed Central · 2025
Useful for the regulatory half of the case in favour, since it shows how long change usually takes and therefore how unusual a rapid response after a disaster is.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Treating the Arctic, California and the Gulf as a single case.
- Stating the case for drilling weakly so it is easier to reject.
- Describing the spill emotively instead of citing what was documented.
- Ignoring that the regulatory regime changed after 2010.
- Concluding that both sides have valid points and stopping there.
- Asserting a position with no test attached to it.
- Citing news coverage where the official technical record exists.
Submission checklist
- At least one argument is tied to a specific location.
- Three or more reasons appear on each side.
- At least one specific detail of the 2010 spill is cited.
- The post-2010 regulatory response is acknowledged.
- Who bears the risk and who gains the benefit is addressed.
- A side is chosen explicitly.
- The evidence that would change your mind is named.
- The post meets the course's word, source and APA requirements.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.
Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.