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

1. Pro ignored my argument regarding Middle East dependency and does not seem to understand my reasoning that as long as we remain dependent on oil, we will be dependent on the Middle East. 2.2 million bbl/d is the current rate of imports from the middle east, 18.9 bbl/d is the total amount exported by the middle east. What my link showed was that the rate of increase of oil production in the rest of the world just matches the middle east, suggesting that middle eastern oil will comprise a larger portion of the world's total production in the future. Expected oil production is not 1.9 million barrels, it's an expected peak production rate of 1 to 1.35 million barrels. And I can't stress enough that a peak is not a sustainable production rate, but a maximum. 2. (a) If our trade deficit with China remains unchanged throughout the life of the ANWR project (30 years, probably more), our debt with them will have grown by more than $6 trillion. Time matters very much in this case, money made in 30 years is not equivalent to money made in 1, and its very misleading to act as though it were. It is not "well established to be at least 10 million barrels," from the EIA's website I posted in round 1, there is at least 5.7 billion barrels, and the expected amount is 10.3. How is $115 "extremely conservative" if the current price is less than half that? How could you possibly justify $200? Pro seems to be choosing numbers that help his case rather than choosing numbers that are logically justified. My opponent challenges the assumption that most people would not travel to Alaska for a job at an oil field, but I think it is more valid than my opponent cares to admit because few people are willing to live in the coldest part of the coldest state in the country (and those who are are probably already living there). Pro also puts too much weight on the benefit of retaining money in the country because as I explained, there is no guarantee that the investments made with ANWR revenue will be domestic. (b) Of course, there will be some benefit to the economy by opening up drilling for oil, but it will primarily be recognized by a small group of people and the benefit to the average American will be minimal. "The jobs derive from having a trillion dollars rattling around in the US economy rather than in some other countries' economies." This is nonsense, my opponent can provide no source backing up this claim. In order for there to be new jobs there has to first be some kind of investment in infrastructure to support those jobs. Not all investments lead to job creation, and not all investments will be domestic anyway. Regardless, it's at most $36.5 billion/year not $100 billion/year, because the oil will not be extracted in 10 years as pro has suggested. 3. The reference I provided says that the Inuit support drilling because they receive royalties from the land but rely on whaling for their food, whereas the Grich'in of the Northwest territories and interior Alaska are vehemently opposed to drilling in ANWR because they depend on the Caribou for food. It's not a matter of money for them, drilling in ANWR threatens their culture and lifestyle. 4. I did not calculate the impact upon caribou because such a calculation would be dubious at best. Pro has not posted any credible references to support the assumptions for his calculations and ignores the claims posted from my reference. Specifically, he ignores the fact that "Caribou avoid developed areas even when there was little traffic," when he says "Caribous are not bothered by unused roads." My opponent thinks that the developed area will be so small that the Caribou won't even notice, when the fact is that they are sensitive creatures that will abandon prime calving areas for less suitable conditions if oil development is allowed in the proposed region. The result will be increased mortality of infant Caribou, and I have already cited the research to prove this is true. The Caribou in the picture are not calving, so it is irrelevant. 4.5 My point was that the overall risk will not change substantially, and that diverting the risk from the Persian Gulf to Alaska does not count as a benefit. You were supposed to arguing that the risk would actually decrease if ANWR were opened to drilling, that was your initial assertion. The permanent damage to the environment is from the drilling and presence of the oil well. It is true that any oil spilled will eventually degrade, but the land will forever be scarred with the presence of a massive oil rig. I have already explained that the Prudhoe Bay drilling is entirely different than the proposed ANWR site because that region is a prime calving area for the Caribou, making ANWR much more sensitive than Prudhoe Bay. Pro has presented no scenario whereby oil imports from the Middle East will not be required, so his argument that ANWR will make us more secure is moot. There will be some benefit to the American economy and government if drilling is allowed, but the extent of this benefit does not warrant the potential calamity of the Caribou and Indians that depend on them. We are not as desperate as Pro seems to think, our national security will be better served by saving our petroleum resources in case we become desperate in the future. Thank you for the debate.