Replies

Setting the record straight. 1)-At best oil supplies from ANWR would reduce our dependency on foreign oil by 2%. This reduction could also be achieved by a 2mpg fuel efficiency improvement in vehicles, which is safely and economically achievable. 2)-The 2,000 acre limit is pure folly. The oil is dispersed over a wide area in at least 30 pockets according to USGS. All of these areas would have to be connected by pipelines and roads and supported by processing facilities, airstrips, gravel pits, and other infrastructure. 3)-Ice roads will not work. There simply is not enough water available in the area to create these roads. Besides, the diverting and eventual melting of these roads itself would cause damage. 4)-The job prediction is completely overblown. Virtually all qualified analysts agree that the study (sponsored by the oil industry) uses inflated and highly unlikely predictions to reach their conclusion. Many have estimated the actual jobs generated would be less than 1/10 the prediction. And the argument that it increases our energy security? Please. One drunk with a rifle shut down the aging Trans-Alaska Pipeline last fall for several days. The pipeline is the only way to get the oil to market and it is EXTREMELY vulnerable. If supporters have to resort to misleading politicians and the public with these inaccurate numbers, I'd say their argument is incredibly weak. Why in the world would we even risk damaging what the FWS calls “among the most complete, pristine, and undisturbed ecosystems on earth.” There are other ways to achieve energy security that make more economic sense. Drilling in ANWR is a last resort at best.