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

Yes, it is about 10 billion barrels in ANWR recoverable with current technology. there is believed to be about twice that much oil there. More will be recoverable as technology advances. 1. (a) Con argues that national security is not improved because it is only advanced, not completely solved. This challenges the definition of the word "improved." How exactly does not Con define "improved" so that an improvement do not make a situation "improved"? (b) The argument is presented that we should not develop ANWR because that only provides 10 billion barrels. Separately, arguments are made by opponents that we should not drill off-shore, not develop oil shale, not develop coal-to-oil conversion, and so forth. Energy independence cannot be achieved without making all the incremental improvements we can. Each step moves us closer. (c) The U.S. gets about 2.2 million barrels http://www.eia.doe.gov... per day from the Middle East. about half of that could be supplanted by ANWR production alone. It is the Middle East that is the major problem. President-elect Obama has recognized that the current level of dependence upon the Middle East is a major problem. We have seen that even minor variations in the oil supply, such as the shutdown of oil platforms and refineries after Hurricane Katrina, produce serious consequences. Therefore national security would be significantly improved by reducing this dependence. 2. a. Con argues that if foreign trade deficits were reduced by $1 trillion then consumers would not receive benefits. I know of no economist or elected official anywhere in the US that remotely agrees with that assertion. Economists of every stripe agree that consumers would benefit from reduced foreign trade deficits. McCain, Obama, Clinton (Bill and Hillary both), and Bush all recognize that trade deficits are a serious problem, and all have addressed them in various ways that acknowledge a serious problem. The trade deficit issue is the major reason that ANWR drilling ought to be encouraged. We are debating an amount of money comparable to the cumulative trade deficit with China. b. At the peak of the high oil prices, oil company executives were receiving about $0.00012 per gallon. http://factspluslogic.com... I challenge con to show the calculation that supports his conclusion that most of the money from ANWR would go to oil company executives. I reference my own website mainly to show calculations and provide links to references relevant to the debate. I invite Con to reference his own calculations, for example, or those of anyone else that support his contention that oil company executive receive the bulk of oil revenues. I can copy the calculations here if con agrees to then respond with solid data to refute then. His numbers are off by about a factor of a million. c. It takes about $100K per year to support a new job. If we average $1 trillion of production over ten years, that is about (10^11 / (10^5 *10)) = 100,000 jobs per year that could be retained in the US rather than sent overseas due to the change in capital flow. that is of great benefit to consumers. d. The trade deficit is offset by ANWR regardless of how is was incurred. Money not sent to Saudi Arabia can be used to pay off the debt to China. 3. Compare one Eskimo tribe opposing drilling to Teddy Kennedy and his friends opposing wind power off Cape Cod. It is inevitable that there be some local opposition to whatever changes things from the way they are. The great majority of Alaskans and Eskimos favor it, just as we may suppose that most Massachusetts residents would favor economic wind power over their honored Senator's objections. The concerns about caribou populations declining are unfounded, as we know from Prudhoe Bay experience, and if they did decline, the tribe would nonetheless be substantially enriched from the oil revenues. The potential risk of a lifestyle change cannot be compelling. 4. (1-2) The question is whether having oil pumps and pipelines interferes at all with caribou calving, and if there so to what extent. The sources I cited show than caribou have calves within a hundred yards of operations and that caribou populations have grown enormously during the Prudhoe Bay operations. I challenge Pro to show why the caribou in ANWR should panic at the sight of an oil derrick, when they do not in Prudhoe Bay. If it were true that oil field operations were devastating to caribou populations, then clearly it would have proved devastating there. It was not. Con argues that the impact of Prudhoe Bay operations was negligible compared to normal fluctuations that caused the growth. That is correct, the impact was negligible. Herds will increase and decrease without any impact. Opponents claim that the Porcupine Caribou have about 11,900 square kilometers of calving area of which 43% is somewhere within the 1002 area where drilling to occur. http://www.taiga.net... Area 1002 has 1.5 million acres http://arctic.fws.gov... of which 2000 is proposed to be used for drilling. The basis of the reference Pro gives that 40% of the herd "could be harmed" is that about that percentage goes somewhere through the entire 1002 region. It is not evidence that a single animal would in fact be harmed. Thus 0.057% of the calving area would be directly affected by drilling. There is no reason to suppose that caribou are unwilling to go anywhere near a drilling area, and in fact we know that calving occurs within a few hundred yards. If the caribou-adverse area were 15 times the actual area used, it still be only about 1% of the calving area. Populations of wildlife naturally fluctuate by factors of ten or more. Consequently even if there were some measurable impact from drilling operations, the population could be expected to recover naturally after the operations ceased. It is at worst temporary. 4.3 con argues that because there is industrial activity in the winter, that caribou will be driven away in the summer. Pro should explain. In the summer, the structures continue to exist, but nearly all the activity ceases. There is no evidence that caribou are more upset by man made objects then they are by rocks or hills. 4.4 Pro grants that modern technology has substantial reduced the threat of environmental damage from tanker spills. 4.5 The amount of oil shipped out of the US by tanker is negligible. If the US reduces imports from distant places, the net tanker traffic will drop substantially. I challenge Pro to produce evidence that the fraction of domestic oil produced shipped abroad is significant. 5. Most of the $1 trillion will go to the cost of recovering the oil, which translates direct to jobs in the U.S. Some will go to profits, so in the "worst case" scenario painted by Con, vast wealth will accumulate in the US that would otherwise accumulate in Saudi Arabia. US companies will invest nearly all of that wealth, which is exactly what the Saudis do. That is a very good thing for the U.S. The oil companies mainly invest in energy, but stockholders will invest in all sorts of productive enterprises that produce jobs. The simplest element of Economics 101 is that it is far better to have money retained within a country than flowing out of it. There is no reputable opinion that denies it, and Pro can cite none. I'm all in favor of reducing consumption, but there is no possibility that will eliminate imports over the time span relevant to ANWR development. What it comes down to is $1 trillion dollars in foreign trade deficit reduction, translating to jobs and wealth for Americans, versus a potential treat to 1% of the population of a caribou herd. I think the caribou can cope. The humans are in doubt.