The United states should permit drilling in ANWR

1. The United States Needs the Money and the Jobs The US Geological Survey last assessed the oil in ANWR in 1998. They concluded, "At prices less than $13 per barrel, no commercial oil is estimated, but at a price of $30 per barrel, between 3 and 10.4 billion barrels are estimated. Economic analysis includes the costs of finding, developing, producing, and transporting oil to market based on a 12 percent after-tax return on investment, all calculated in constant 1996 dollars." [4] They did not consider any price of oil greater than $40. The current price of oil is $100.39. [5] Inflation since 1996 has been 44.3%, so $40 oil in 1996 dollars would be $57.72 in today's dollars. [6] Using the mean estimate of about 5.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil, at current market prices there is $520 billion in oil available. The technology for oil recovery keeps improving, so that some of what was not economic in 1998 is now economic. Moreover, new seismic studies have been blocked, and all exploratory drilling has been blocked. Oil oil indicated in the limited seismic data available is counted in the estimates. Such estimates are necessarily low, because ore oil is always discovered and new technology makes it recoverable. For example, in 1980, the proved reserves of Oklahoma were about 1 billion barrels, and currently they are about 600 million barrels. [7] However, total production is values at about $100 billion, at an average price of about $20, implying that 5 billion barrels have been produced. [8] For the United States as a whole, since 1970 oil production has been 5.5 times the decrease in proven reserves. [9] If the pattern holds, the 5.2 billion barrels of ANWR proven reserves will ultimately yield about 28 billion barrels of production. The ANWR oil would then be worth about $2.8 trillion at current prices.It shouldn't be surprising that production is almost always much higher than original estimates. Estimates are based on what the data shows, and most oil does not show up on seismic studies. Oil produced in ANWR does not have to be imported. There is no reasonable scenario under which oil can be offset by wind or solar or other energy sources in the next 25 years. The US Energy Information Agency projects the demand for oil through 2035. US demand is expect to increase y about 5 percent, while the demand in the rest of the world doubles. [10] The price of oil is likely to increase significantly while the US will need as much a ever. That makes the ANWR oil extremely valuable.According to one study ANWR will create 2.2 million jobs, [11] A majority of the jobs are the result of the revenue being spent indirectly within the United States. The alternative is to buy oil, which takes money out of the country and gives the wealth to other countries who then get the induced economic benefits. 2. Alaskans have a right to revenue from their resourcesThe State of Alaska, the Inuit people, and the Federal government will substantially benefit from increased tax revenues. The Inuit people and the State of Alaska both favor drilling."The Inupiat Eskimos who live in and near ANWR support onshore oil development on the Coastal Plain." [12] Recently, "The Alaska State Senate yesterday voted unanimously in favor of the ANWR oil and gas issue. The State chamber voted 20-0 in favor [of ANWR development] ... The resolution was previously passed in the Alaska House 36 in favor 1 against 3 absent. ... Many lawmakers took the podium yesterday to give strong testimonial support to the resolution and directly urge Congress to open the 10-02 area to oil and gas exploration. In the State of Alaska 78% of Alaskans support the issue and it has unanimously been supported by all governors, congressional senators and representatives." [13]Alaskans are more aware of the risk and benefits of ANWR development than the Feds who are now making the decision for them. "Alaskans are as environmentally conscious as anyone else in the world. And perhaps even more so since we truly live with the wilderness surrounding us." [14] they should be allowed to make the decision in favor of development.3. Development will aid international relationsANWR production could replace about two-thirds of the oil obtained from the Middle East. The greater the energy-independence of the country, the less the potential threat from foreign powers threatening to cut off energy supplies and the less the impact from any action that attempts to do so.The United States as a whole has enough oil for complete energy independence, if the resources are developed. Irrational objections have blocked the development in Alaska and elsewhere. Development in Alaska is an important first step in achieving energy independence. 4. There is little environmental riskThe fact that the word "wildlife" is in the ANWR name does not mean there is a substantial wildlife population. The US also has National Forests that have no trees. ANWR is barren tundra with small wildlife populations. The most significant wildlife in ANWR is a large herd of caribou that migrates into the area in the summer. Experience with drilling on the North slope showed five-fold increases in the size of caribou herds, and no harm to the population of any wildlife species. The area subject to drilling in ANWR is desolate, and the area to be drilled is tiny. ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina ( a little smaller than Portugal) and the area to be drilled is about the size of the Charleston airport. The ratio is that of the size of postage stamp to a football field. Even though there was no measurable ha from North Slope development, improved technology continues to lessen the impact. Drilling activity is confined to winter, when the ground is frozen and there is almost no wildlife present. Production continues year round, but experience shows that wildlife is not bothered by the production.Polar bear populations are rising overall, with greater numbers in Canada than in the US. "As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, 'the Inuit were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a hell of a lot more bears.' ...Their widely portrayed lurch toward extinction on a steadily melting ice cap is not supported by bear counts in other Arctic regions either." [15]The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a major disaster, with a total cost estimated at $7 billion. [16] The lessons learned from that event minimize the chance of it recurring. Even so, a $7 billion risk is not a good reason to prevent development that may well return $2800 billion. Making ANWR off limits increases the need for deep water drilling that is even more risky, and it increases oil tanker travel from from foreign oil to the US. We need the oil, the revenue, and the jobs. The risks are acceptable. The resolution is affirmed.The challenge for this debate allows new legislation, provided it is reasonable.[4] http://pubs.usgs.gov...[5}http://www.oil-price.net...[6] http://www.usinflationcalculator.com...[7] http://www.eia.gov...[8] http://www.okmoga.com...[9] http://en.wikipedia.org... Wikipedia references government data [10] http://205.254.135.7/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=IEO2011&subject=0-IEO2011&table=5-IEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=Reference-0504a_1630[11] http://www.anwr.org...[12] http://www.anwr.org...[13] http://www.anwr.org...[14] http://alaskaoutdoorjournal.com...[15] http://www.nationalpost.com...[16] http://www.americanprogress.org...