Last year, the House, citing the need for more domestic oil to ease the reliance on imports, gave a green light to drilling in the refuge, but the Senate refused to go along.
Many Senate Democrats, joined by a handful of moderate Republicans, have repeatedly blocked pro-drilling legislation, arguing that the refuge would be harmed ecologically. The coastal plain, which includes calving areas for caribou, is home to polar bears and other wildlife, as well as being a stopover for an annual migration of millions of birds.
The article also mentions that, "Without the refuge’s development, oil flowing from the North Slope would fall to 500,000 barrels a day — half of current levels — by 2025 and approach levels at which the pipeline may no longer be economical to operate," but your opponent would point out the line:
Opening an Alaska wildlife refuge to oil development would only slightly reduce America’s dependence on imports and would lower oil prices by less than 50 cents a barrel, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Energy Department.
The report, issued by the Energy Information Administration, or EIA, said that if Congress gave the go-ahead to pump oil from Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the crude could begin flowing by 2013 and reach a peak of 876,000 barrels a day by 2025.
Good luck!
Thank you both!