The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

Putting references in the comments exceeds the 8000 character limit, a violation of Conduct. I'll let Con put them into his next round.The United States Needs the Money and the JobsCon did not dispute my contention that the United States needs the revenue and jobs that would come from ANWR development. Indeed, that is indisputable. Con only argues that the estimates may be less than the study I cited suggests. The economic impact of ANWR changes depending upon the state of the economy. The economy is now worse than at the time of any previous study, so the benefit is more important.Con claims that there would be no economic impact for ten years. That's wrong, because the jobs and all the materials needed for construction start soon after the obstacles are removed. The project has been blocked for decades, and that's a reason to get it going, not to further delay it.Con makes the argument hat ANWR alone won't provide energy independence. It would provide about 15 or 20% o domestic production. It's part of long list of blocked development: the Eastern Gulf coast, the Atlantic shelf, the Pacific coast, Western oil shale, and on and on. If they were not all blocked we would be energy dependent. It's one of many that should be permitted. It's not logical to reject money on the grounds that it is not as much as one would ideally like to have. No single action is going to fix our dire economic straits, but we should do everything reasonable that helps. ANWR has the potential of providing $2.8 trillion or more. We need it.Con did not give a reason why only the proven reserves of ANWR when history shows that actual exploration and development typical results in more than five times the recovery. Exploratory drilling in ANWR has been systematically blocked, and even collecting new seismic data is blocked. That minimizes our knowledge of how much is really there. Here's an analogy. Look at empty land in the summer time and count all the spiders you see. So how many do you think you will see? Statistically, empty land has about 70,000 spiders per acre. There is nothing unusual about initial estimates of oil reserves being low; they are always low.Con argues that the price of oil will not drop if ANWR is developed. That's exactly what I said. If anything, the price will rise substantially because we will be competing with China and India for the world's oil. It makes domestic production ever more important. Saudi Arabia does worry about the price of oil, because they are exporting. We should strive to be exporters as well, and failing that to import as little as possible. If Con's numbers of 10.2 billion barrels at the preset price of $100 are correct, that's over $1 trillion. It doesn't have to be larger to fully justify development. If the normal ratio of estimates to production holds, and oil doubles, it's over $5 trillion.It makes no difference where the oil from ANWR is shipped. If it's sent to foreign countries, we still get to keep the $1 - $5 trillion. It's logical to swap oil supplies if that reduces delivery costs. Less tanker travel means less danger of spills. Of course, it's always possible to reroute the oil through delivery to Wes Coast ports if there is some reason to do so. One of Con's premises, with which I agree, is that ANWR won't significantly change the world price of oil. Therefore it's fungible.2. Alaskans have a right to revenue from their resourcesCon argued that if Californians wanted to cut down all the redwoods, they wouldn't have a right to do so. That misses the point. Californians are more environmentally aware of the value of redwoods than the rest of the country. Outside interference is completely unnecessary to preserve redwoods because Californians are better able to make the decision. Alaskans are more aware of their environment than the outsiders who are ready to make the decisions. Consider what right others have to make your decisions? Any claim by others is based upon you not knowing the facts or being unqualified to make the decision. Lacking those justifications, your rights ought to prevail. That's the case with Alaskans.3. International relations would be improvedCon argues that "marine pollution" might possibly affect migratory birds that would violate a treaty with Japan. The potential for marine pollution comes from oil tanker spills. Japan gets all it's oil from tanker shipments. It is not plausible that Japan would claim that oil shipment by tanker be banned. If the US fails to develop ANWR, we will be getting more oil from the Middle East, and that oil would be delivered by tanker. Vast safety improvements have been made since the Exxon Valdez spill, [20]. International shipping, outside of US control. is likely more hazardous.More generally, it is not plausible that international treaties forbid developing 6000 acres of ANWR. Nothing done will have a measurable impact on any species. What birds are going to refuse to migrate? No specific impact is even alleged.Con does not dispute that the world would be a much better place politically if the US were not so dependant on oil from the Middle East. For example, sanctions against Iran have been ineffective because Europe and China want Iranian oil. If the US developed ANWR and other US resources, we could offer to replace the Iranian supplies. That has a value beyond the value of the oil.4. There is little environmental riskCon cites a study that claims lower birth rates of caribou near Prudoe Bay. I doubt the study because there is no physical cause identified, and photos show caribou grazing contently near the Prudoe Bay site. [19] However, let's assume it's true. First, the drilling area is minuscule, 2000 of the 19.000,000 million acres, so even if populations were devastated in the drilling areas it wouldn't affect 1% of the herd. Second, if the claim is true there is still no likely effect on the caribou population because the population is determined by the food supply and the numbers of predators. (In Alaska, wolves.) Caribou hunting is legal in Alaska, with 22,000 of the 950,000 animals harvested each year. [17] The populations has been growing despite hunting, so loss of some animals has no effect -- it provides more available food for the rest."A series of scientific papers published since 1992 consistently show that the caribou population has increased dramatically during the period of oil field development, and caribou herds regularly use ranges in the oil fields. ... Another paper published in 1998, in the journal Biological Conservation, showed the size of the caribou herd that uses the oil fields has increased dramatically (from about 5,000 animals to more than 23,000) since the oil fields were first developed." [18]Con provided no evidence countering my claim that there is no threat to the polar bear population. Con provides no evidence that even the few polar bears in the area are threatened, only that bears exist.The claim is a total of 1.9 million gallons of spills in the course of developing Prudhoe Bay. The average is 420 gallons, well within clean up capacity. Spills mostly occur near the small areas of activity which are continuously monitored and have clean up crews at hand. No spills causing significant damage are cited.If only 16,000 gallons (44 tonnes) persist from the Valdez spill, it's effects are now negligible. Oil seeps naturally out of the sea bottom, about 160,000 tones per year in North American waters alone. [21]I challenge Con to quantify his claims of harm.[17] http://www.adfg.alaska.gov...[18] http://news.heartland.org...[19] http://politicallyincorrectfacts.com...[20] http://www.d17.uscgnews.com...[21] http://books.nap.edu...