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

1. Our security will not be improved because we will still be very much dependent on the Middle East for oil. The fact is that by the time ANWR is online and producing oil, exports from the Middle East will have doubled. " As world crude oil production capacity expands by an average 2 million b/d over the next two decades, nearly 50% of the incremental production is forecast to be provided by the Persian Gulf region. Middle East oil exports could double from the present level of 18.9 million b/d." http://www.accessmylibrary.com... As long as we remain dependent on oil, we will be dependent on the Middle East, there is no escaping that fact. So for the government to actually encourage and foster our oil dependence is *decreasing* our national security, in a sense, because we would be much more secure if we weren't so addicted to cheap oil. Also, our refining capacity would not increase if ANWR were opened to drilling. My opponent brings up a good point actually, that our refining capacity is so stretched that any extra oil produced in ANWR couldn't even be refined domestically. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov... It would have to be exported to Canada first so they can refine it, thus the only benefit to the US is the profits realized by the oil companies. We currently export more than half a million bbl/day to Canada so they can refine it and sell it back to us at a higher value. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov... Refinery capacity needs to be increased before we start talking about opening ANWR up to drilling. 2. (a) The foreign trade deficit would not be reduced by $1 trillion, $1 trillion is the total contribution to GDP over the life of the project (assuming $100/bbl). The deficit is annual (debt is absolute). The reduction to the foreign trade deficit would be 1 million bbl/day times $100/bbl (even though its less now) times 365 days = $36.5 billion. Not quite the deficit we have going with China - $256 billion in 2007. http://www.census.gov... Economists that more than "remotely agree with me": http://benmuse.typepad.com... "Welfare benefits to U.S. oil consumers? There aren't any, except in their role of taxpayers."..."Job creation? Some in Alaska, but with full employment there would be no net job creation; jobs created on the North Slope would be taken from other industries and places." (b) From your own website - "Exxon earned $40.8 billion in 2007." That is profit. Not money going to the hard laboring oil workers, profit. Maybe its not going to the executives, but its going to the largest share-holders of the company. Exxon has a gross profit margin of 20%, and if you apply that to the ANWR situation, whichever company gets the contract is looking at a cool $7 billion in annual profits. (c) This is dubious. First of all, $1 trillion worth of oil isn't coming out in 10 years, not if the *peak* production rate is 1 million bbl/day. Even if the peak rate were maintained throughout the life of the project, it would take more than 27 years to extract 10 billion barrels, but it would actually take longer because the peak rate is not sustainable. Regardless, if we analyze it on an annual basis, 36.5 billion/year could be 365,000 jobs by your logic, but most of that money gets consolidated. Much of it goes to profits, taxes and other royalties, and to other firms involved in the development. The fact is that 365,000 people are not needed to extract the oil, so it doesn't make sense to think that they would be just because the revenue would warrant it. (I don't know know how you did that division btw, 1 trillion is 10^12 not 10^11). 3. The Grich'in Indians depend on the PCH for 80% of their sustenance. To downplay the necessity of the caribou to these people is insulting to their culture. And it doesn't seem as though they would receive any royalties from oil development on the coastal plain because they live to the south and east into Canada, yet they depend upon a caribou herd that may be harmed if oil development on the north coast far from their home is allowed. 4. (1-3) You cited no such source regarding caribou calving within a hundred yards of operations, not that I saw. However, I can provide extensive research proving that Caribou do indeed avoid developed areas for calving. http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu... "... after construction of a road system near Milne Point, mean caribou abundance declined by more than two-thirds within 2 km and nearly tripled 4-6 km from roads... Logically, roads comprising an oilfield complex that are on average less tha n 3 km apart may depress area wile calving activity." ... "There are now indications that caribou which spend more time in or near the oilfields are not faring as well as other members of the Central Arctic Herd which seldom encounter development" ..." Nevertheless, caribou with newborn calves still avoided developed areas, even when there was little traffic"..."consider that the Porcupine Caribou Herd is much more concentrated on its calving ground than the smaller Central Arctic Herd and may therefore be more vulnerable t o disturbance." 4.4 It is true that the threat from spills has been reduced, but they do still occur, and the last was on the North Slope in May of 2006. http://news.bbc.co.uk... An oil spill in the summer on the coastal plain of ANWR could be devastating for the PCH. 4.5 I don't consider a decreased risk in the Persian Gulf for an increased risk of oil spills in Alaska to be an improvement. 5. No jobs will be created in ANWR because Alaska already has 100% employment. The only way jobs could be created (for Americans) is if unemployed workers from the contiguous US moved to the most northern part of Alaska, which is not very likely I must say. I've already cited economists that agree with this assertion. Again, the profiting of large US firms is not justification for potentially destroying the lifestyle of an indigenous tribe and threatening one of the last great untouched wildernesses in our country, or even the world for that matter. There is also no guarantee that they reinvest their money in the US, if they can get a better return in Dubai (or wherever) than that is where they will invest. There are certainly possibilities for reducing consumption beyond the increased production that may be realized from ANWR. Perhaps we will not be able to achieve independence from oil in the next 30 years, but in order to move in that direction we need a government that is committed to phasing out our addiction by slowly making it less competitive by means of higher taxes. Opening ANWR to drilling will encourage our continued dependence on, and dangerous addiction to petroleum.