The U.S. should legalize and encourage drilling in ANWR

Thanks for offering me this debate, I hope to be more of a challenge than your previous opponent. Before I begin, I think it is pertinent to define exactly how much oil may be produced in ANWR. The mean (expected value) estimate is 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil. "# Projected ANWR peak production rates range from 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels per day across the 6 cases. # For the mean resource case (10.3 billion barrels technically recoverable), ANWR peak production rates range from 1.0 to 1.35 million barrels per day." http://www.eia.doe.gov... 1. The security of the United States will not be enhanced because we will still be largely dependent on foreign oil sources. We currently consume 20.8 million bbl/day, and that number is expected to grow by the time ANWR would be producing. We currently produce 7.6 million bbl/day. The fact of the matter is that even if that number were raised to 8.6 million bbl/day, we would still be very dependent upon the same oil-producing countries that we currently are, so we would not be any more secure. 2. It is true that GDP would increase by opening ANWR to oil drilling, but this is not synonymous with enhancing the economic well-being of our country. If the price of oil does not decline as my opponent agrees, ordinary Americans would see no benefit from the increased oil production. The $1.15 trillion (which assumes a price of $115/bbl and 10 billion bbl available) would go mostly to the executives of the oil company(s) that get the contract, especially if drilling is "encouraged" by means of low taxes. (I don't understand why you posted a link to your own website, which does not seem to be relevant anyway) For the sake of simplicity, I will agree for now that the length of time before production begins is irrelevant. However, I do need to mention that the peak production rates quoted above occur 5 to 10 years after development, and are only sustained for a few years at best before declining. This is an important factor when considering the value of ANWR oil, because although the destruction is everlasting, the oil is not. 3. The Inuit do not depend on the Caribou for food, but the Gwich'in Indians do and are very much against drilling in ANWR. (The Inuit are a whaling tribe, thus they do oppose off-shore oil drilling. They support drilling in ANWR because they stand to profit from it.) 4. The Porcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) is one of the largest remaining herds in the world with nearly 200,000 Caribou, and many other species inhabit the coastal plain where oil development is proposed. http://www.anwr.org... 4.1 The proposed drilling area in ANWR is a prime calving area for the PCH, making it unique compared to other drilling sites on the North Slope. Also, the increase in caribou at Prudhoe Bay is partly due to the cyclical nature of herd populations and probably more due to the decrease in the local wolf population. "The USDOI predicts that up to 40% of the PCH could be harmed if the 1002 Area [in ANWR] were opened to oil development [USPIRG, 1998]." http://elvis.engr.wisc.edu... (see figure 5) 4.2 Again, the area to be drilled is probably the most crucial area for protecting because it is the prime calving area for so many caribou. Developing this site could be catastrophic for the herd, and the Indians that depend on them. 4.3 That doesn't matter, there will still be industrial activity year-round and the caribou will be driven from their calving site. 4.4 This is true, but not sufficient to warrant drilling in ANWR. 4.5 If the oil produced in ANWR is shipped by oil tanker, the risk of a tanker spill in the environmentally sensitive region would invariably increase. Spills are also more probable in the arctic region due to ice bergs. The actual rate of transport of oil would probably not decline at all anyway, because oil is traded based on varying grades and qualities to minimize the cost to refineries. For example, you may be surprised to know that the U.S. exports some of its oil to foreign refineries. 5. "The end result is that oil that is less expensive to recover will always be tapped first, so we need to make as much available as possible." Why? So that we maximize the profits of oil executives? I don't see any other benefit to this argument, and I think the voters will agree that higher profits for billionaires is not much of a good reason to do anything, especially something that may have dire environmental consequences. (again my opponent references his own website, why?) Until we substantially reduce our disproportionately high consumption rate, the oil production potential of ANWR will not be significant enough to warrant the environmental burden that it brings. We will still be greatly dependent upon foreign countries so our security will not improve. Our trade deficit with China will certainly not go away, we don't even import oil from China.