ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) has a significant amount of oil which would be a valuable supplement to existing Alaskan reserves. Arguing that it will not solve the problem all by itself is akin to saying we shouldn't put up any wind electric generators because they will only give us a few percent of our electric needs at best.

The development of the reserves will alter the coastal portion of the reserve, a fraction of its total size, and endanger no species of wildlife.

The infrastructure for delivering the oil to market is already there, The Trans-Alaska Pipeline.

The preliminary exploration for determining just exactly how much oil is really in ANWR has yet to be done. The figures used by pros and cons are based more on geology and history and polemics than actual measurement.

There is an area to the west called NPRA which is expected to have additional recoverable reserves on a par with ANWR, but distributed over a greater area. This will be more expensive to develop, but is being explored now.

The oil companies for the time being are putting their money into less hard to explore and politically less hot areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico.

60 Minutes did a pretty even-handed article on ANWR about two years ago.


For the time being our society is petrochem dependent, and knowing how and where to get more of it should be tied to a national drive for conservation, governmental rewards for frugality.