Derek -- The American pubic is NOT "overwhelmingly against ravaging" 2000 acres of the 20 million acre refuge. The most recent poll shows 50% of Americans support ANWR development.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=257

The survey finds that the rise in energy prices also has had a perceptible impact on public views of the tradeoff between boosting the energy supply and protecting the environment. A solid majority (57%) now says it is more important to develop new energy sources than to protect the environment, up from 49% who expressed that view in March. Support for oil and gas drilling in the Alaskan Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) also has gained, from 42% in March to 50% currently. Democrats, in particular, are much more receptive to drilling in the Alaska refuge.

I completely disagree with that conclusion. I have seen plenty of other surveys that have shown numbers in the 70's and even low 80's against drilling in ANWR (it's all about how the question is asked, in water order the questions are asked, and to whom the questions are asked - random is not necessarily unbiased.) I'll ask you this - if only 50% (or even less) of Americans were against drilling - why has it been so difficult for drilling advocates to open up ANWR? Why have repeated back-door attempts to allow drilling in ANWR been defeated in the Senate, and even the House? I stand by my statement that Americans are in fact still overwhelmingly against drilling in ANWR.

I am against drilling in ANWR, and I know a LOT of people who are. So...I agree with Derek, and thats not just because I know him.

Luke S
Falmouth
PS We now have 80 Redpolls! And they are sooo tame!!!! Yipee!

Also, while the impact of drilling in ANWR does in fact take up a relatively small percentage of the refuge - it happens to fall within one of the most ecologically sensitive areas, including significant concentrations of shorebirds and waterfowl, as well as falling within the corridor of migrant caribou. Furthermore, that figure of "only" 2000 acres is significantly misleading. While 2000 acres will be destroyed directly by roads, drill pads, buildings, air strips, etc, thousands oupon thousands of acres could be disrupted by the web of roads, pipes, by traffic, by changing runoff patterns etc resulting in the habitat fragmentation that is so destructive. If there was a big fence around the 2000 acres that you site, and not a step would be taken beyond those 2000 acres, and there would be zero impact beyond that 2000 acres, then it would be a worthy statistic to quote. That is not the case. The effects of drilling in ANWR will actually have hemisphere-wide implications from a ornithological, and yes, climitalogical, perspective.

Kevin -- 2,000 acres is only a "limit" on ground contact of production oil facilities. The required network of gravel roads is exempt, elevated pipelines only measure the support posts.

A speculative map of what the 2,000-acre "limit" allows, http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.htm

Support for drilling has increased because people incorrectly assume it will lower prices. At best, if oil prices stay high so they can get the high-cost oil, it'll drop prices only 30 to 50 cents a barrel. That's less than a penny for a gallon of gasoline.

ANWR oil is also risky, with unknown geologies, pipeline problems, and other issues.

Higher energy efficiency is guaranteed to be a much better solution, with many advantages. Each barrel saved requires an investment of only about $12. We could cut oil demand in half by the time ANWR peaked with only a few percent supply.

See graph, "The path beyond oil..." (PDF pg 253 of 332) at http://oilendgame.com
(Note the drop, 1979 - mid 80's)

Excellent points, Cosmos. You touched upon a big issue that's not getting enough press, and that's some of the geological issues here. Also, each year, there is less and less permafrost under the arctic tundra. This loss of permafrost, due to global climate change, is undermining current and future infrastructure - including oil pipelines - a real recipe for disaster.

This issue is a no-brainer. Stick to the facts and leave aside the emotional rhetoric and bs doomsday predictions. I would urge you all to read the following article written by George Will.

He sums up this whole 25 year long debate very nicely.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/3528437.html

Speaking of sticking to the dact then, I'll counter with the following (thanks to a reader for sending along this summary of sources):
The real reason for shortage of refining capacity,
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/fs

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/2000AcreHoax200510.pdf

http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/PennyaGallon20yrs1.pdf

'Arctic Refuge 101: Fact Sheets'
http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/arcticrefuge/factsheets.asp

GASOLINE PRICES
About 900,000 barrels a day are currently coming from Alaska.
http://www.alyeska-pipe.com/

The EIA says that "technically" (ignores cost of production) recoverable
Refuge oil would only replace other declining Alaskan sources. Oil
consumption (and imports) will increase. And they admit that OPEC controls
world oil prices.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/ogp/results.html
------------

BUSINESS/RISKS

The business case against drilling, problems with the Trans Alaska Pipeline,
and other factors,
http://www.uspirg.org/reports/falseprofits2003.pdf
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E01-04_FoolsGoldAnnot.pdf

Consumer backlash. 'Do not drill in ANWR or we will boycott your products.'
Sign Barbara Boxer's petition.
http://ga4.org/campaign/boycott?source=petitionsearch

Oil companies would be forced to rely on an old, worn, corroded, 800-mile
pipeline so indefensible a drunk shut it down with a hunting rifle.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1584553.stm

Unknown oil geologies: The Badami oil field is midway between Prudhoe and
ANWR, did not produce as expected.
'Badami pipeline shutdown approved'
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/232460769.shtml
'BP to mothball Badami'
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pnads/638153503.shtml
(BP has since restarted, due to higher oil prices)
----------

QUANTITY OF OIL
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm
Table 1. Estimates of volumes of technically recoverable oil
Figure 6. Summary of the USGS estimates of economically recoverable oil

Technically recoverable analysis,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/arctic_national_wildlife_refuge/html/execsummary.html
-----------

HIGHER EFFICIENCY
'Reducing America's Energy Dependence
Breaking our addiction to oil is the real solution to high gas prices. '
http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

'Slower, Costlier and Dirtier, A Critique of the Bush Energy Plan '
http://www.nrdc.org/air/energy/scd/scdinx.asp

'More Efficient Conventional Vehicles'
http://www.nrdc.org/breakthechain/howto2.asp

'Drilling in Detroit '
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_and_suvs/page.cfm?pageID=228

Higher efficiency is our nation's largest "source" of energy, producing FIVE
times more than our domestic oil production.
'Energy security: It takes more than drilling'
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/EnergySecurity/S02-05_TakesMoreThanDrill.pdf

Innovation for Profits, Jobs, and Security: The first roadmap of the oil
solution (book is 2 megabytes, technical, written for business & military)
http://oilendgame.org/

Small SUV, gets equivalent to 99 mpg gasoline
http://oilendgame.org/Hypercar/pages/casestudies.php
----------

DECEPTIONS
A speculative map of what the 2,000-acre "limit" allows,
http://www.inforain.org/Northslope/anwr_3.htm

http://www.trustees.org/2KAcresMyth.htm

The "smallest footprint ever" Alpine oil field touted by pro-drillers. 5
more drill sites were approved on Dec. 4, 2004 -- and they want "... 24 more
production drill sites, 122 more miles of roads, 7 more airports, 150 miles
of pipeline, and 1262 more acres of tundra smothered by gravel."
http://www.wilderness.org/Library/Documents/upload/AlpineNoEnvironmentalShowpiece.pdf

Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, media mis-reporting 16 billion barrels
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/EETD-wrong-number.html
----------

WILDLIFE
(useful # link)
'Potential Impacts of Oil and Gas Development on Refuge Resources'
http://arctic.fws.gov/issues1.htm#section4

Maps showing concentrated calving moved to the south, away from oil
development, plus info re avoiding roads, etc.
'Section 4: The Central Arctic Caribou Herd'
http://www.absc.usgs.gov/1002/section4part1.htm
"Our data, in fact, indicate that productivity can and will decline if the
cumulative loss of preferred habitat, when superimposed on natural forces,
is sufficient to compromise nutrition."
----------

GENERAL ENERGY ISSUES
Rocky Mountain Institute, 'General Energy Policy'
http://www.rmi.org/sitepages/pid306.php

Downloadable book, 'Natural Capitalism' (covers efficiency, vehicles,
suburban sprawl, human resources, "feebates", etc.
http://www.natcap.org/sitepages/pid20.php
---------- end

'A commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the
interested public and journalists.'
http://www.realclimate.org/

'Energy, Technologies, Issues and Policies for Sustainable Mobility'
http://www.greencarcongress.com/

Or we can all stick our heads in the sand and pretend everything will be JUST FINE!

Sorry, due to a typographical error, the first line of a previous post of mine should of insetad read:
"Speaking of sticking to the facts then,"

Er, "instead read"

Jeeesh, maybe I really do have a concussion after taking a nasty fall at Bradbury Mountian this morning - two Ruffed Grouse by the way. No finches in the hemlocks as I had hoped.

Those are great objective sources!

NRDC
wilderness society
Barbara Boxer
Green Car Congress

Give me a break.

Selective reading, Kevin?
Don't forget to mention some of the other sources listed, including such hippy propaganda disseminators like:
-The Department of Energy
-Petroleumnews.com
-United States Geological Survey

Along with some other references:
-The BBC
-Union of Concerned Scientists
-Christian Science Monitor
-Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

But, you are absolutely correct. I did not reference writings by George Will.

Kevin, actually the NRDC is a very objective source. They use facts from the USGS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, biologists, and other reliable sources. Read the sources at bottom of http://www.nrdc.org/land/wilderness/artech/farc2000.asp

Just because George Will wrote what you want to read does not prove he's accurate. The 1st half of his column is filled with deceptions, to support his rabid, inaccurate attacks in the 2nd half. Would you please email him, and ask him to supply you with his sources?

Example: His claim the footprint "will be on a 2,000-acre plot". The word "plot" is defined as a small area of land (singular).

And consider his suggestion that we should drill in ANWR if geologists said it had "only three thimbles of oil".
That is not very rational, considering higher energy efficiency costs only $12 to save each barrel of oil -- and is guaranteed to "produce" many times more than ANWR, with many advantages.