Don’t you think we will need the oil in 2050 more than we need it today?

Fred.

Oil produced from the refuge would come at an enormous, and irreversible, cost. The refuge is among the world’s last true wildernesses, and it is one of the largest sanctuaries for Arctic animals. Traversed by a dozen rivers and framed by jagged peaks, this spectacular wilderness is a vital birthing ground for polar bears, grizzlies, Arctic wolves, caribou and the endangered shaggy musk ox, which has recently been re-introduced after becoming extinct in the area.

To get an idea of what drilling would do to the refuge, just look 60 miles west to Prudhoe Bay, where 1,000 square miles of fragile tundra has become a sprawling industrial zone containing 1,500 miles of roads and pipelines, 1,400 producing wells and three jetports. The result is a landscape defaced by mountains of sewage sludge, scrap metal, garbage and more than 60 contaminated waste sites that contain, and often leak, acids, lead, pesticides, solvents and diesel fuel.
While proponents of drilling insist that the Arctic Refuge could be developed by disturbing as little as 2,000 acres within the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, an National Resources Defense Council analysis finds otherwise. U.S. Geological Survey studies have found that oil in the refuge isn’t concentrated in a single, large reservoir. Rather, it’s spread across the coastal plain in more than 30 small deposits, which would require vast networks of roads and pipelines that would fragment the habitat, disturbing and displacing wildlife.

America’s energy problems will not be solved by more oil. Only by reducing our reliance on oil, both foreign and domestic, and investing in cleaner, renewable forms of power will our country achieve true energy security.

And we already have many of the tools we need to accomplish this. We have the ability right now to produce hybrid cars and trucks. If America made the transition to these more efficient vehicles, far more oil would be saved than the Arctic Refuge or coastal drilling would produce. Doesn’t pursuing those ends make far more sense than selling our natural heritage and exploiting one of our true wilderness gems?
For more on the effects to the wildlife in the area, go to the NRDC’s Web site at: http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/facts1.asp

Part of the problem with the ANWR question is the total misunderstanding of what the area is like and why drilling here would make so much sense. The environmentalists have gotten us all wrapped around the axle with pictures of newborn caribou who they claim will die while neglecting to tell us that the caribou herd the uses the grounds at the current oilfields near Prudhoe Bay and along the pipeline has grown ten-fold since oil started flowing down the pipeline.

As for why they want to drill in ANWR, the answer is just plain common sense. The oil that is known to exist there is within 75 miles of an operational hot-oil pipeline. The oil transportation problem is thus already solved.

The understanding of the amount of oil in ANWR is also a confused mess, thanks again to the environmental dingbats who go out of their way to hide the real issue. Their claim, more or less based in fact, is that ANWR offers just six months’ to a year’s supply of oil for the United States. That’s true as far as it goes, but ANWR will not be used exclusively; there are any number of other domestic sources of oil still producing. I think a far better way to think of the amount of oil available in ANWR is to realize that even the lowest estimate of the oil available is equal to all of the oil the United States is likely to import from Saudi Arabia for the next 20 years. That alone should do wonders for our trade imbalance.

I also agree that we need to develop alternative sources of energy so we have options beyond oil and natural gas, however Democrats in Congress have become masters as stopping any of these that come along–like nuclear power. The key to this, though, is not to kill our economy by waking up one morning and quitting oil “cold turkey.” The answer is to use the oil we have and can get cheaply and easily from within our borders to keep our economy running while we develop other energy sources. We cannot stop using one while still waiting for another.

Bottom line…if you want to lower your energy costs–whether for gasoline or electricity–stop reelecting the current generation of do-nothing democrats in Congress. Find some pragmatic, practical people, whether democrats or republicans, who at least have the common sense that God gave a fencepost, and send these people to Congress.

Remember, the democrats running Congress these days promised us change when they took over after the 2006 election. So far the most significant change they have delivered is doubling the price at the pump for gas. And they still prefer that we keep buying oil from places like the Middle East and Venezuela instead of allowing development of our own proven reserves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMKcxVdju8Q

If we don’t get ANWAR going, the pipeline will be shut down as it is at about 50% capacity now compared with 10 years ago. The reason the oil companies are not drilling as much as you would like in their current leases is the potential for a huge deposit that would pay for drilling is not nearly as big as it would be in ANWAR. That should answer your questions 1-4

Everyone agrees that we need alternative energy, but let us develop our resources in a responsible way while we bring on solar and wind power. If you could see the tiny part of ANWAR that will be drilled compared to the total size, it is like a drop of water in an ocean of tundra.

Jim