Defenders of ANWR Drilling--

As a Republican who sure as hell never voted for the alleged current commander in chief (or his daddy), a few questions:


1)    You admit it will not make the US "close to energy independent". You also admit it has its own "fierce beauty". So why ruin what you also admit to be a "pristine environment"?

2)    "The thin edge of the the wedge" applies not only in the lower 48 but in AK also, or didn't you realize that?

3)    You assure us that 1 drop constitutes an oil spill. Really"? How comforting. With pressure for employment on this project and with the Bush administration's well-known concern for the environment, do you really think this standard will be enforced?

4)    According to the Wall St Journal today (17 Mar 2005), it's very possible that the smaller firms, not the majors, (who are not eager for possible bad publicity) are the ones who would be doing the drilling in ANWR. Without a vertically integrated organization, including divisions which sell oil and gas to many consumers in the lower 48, how concerned do you think they will be with spills (especially with the fox diligently guarding the henhouse)? (Gale Norton is world-renowned for for her strong defense of the environment).

5)   The estimates of oil under the refuge run from 6 to 16 billion barrels, according to the Journal today. Exactly why do you think 16 billion barrels (to be generous) is worth destroying the refuge? It'll only be 1 road--again, how comforting. In fact what law will enforce this?

6)   "Having additionally locally produced oil and more control over our consumption" will lead to lower oil prices. Wonderful. Your naivete is touching. What pill do you intend to feed US consumers so they do not take lower oil prices as an invitation to the next SUV or other gas-guzzler craze?

7)   What, besides wishful thinking, do you have in mind as a plan to actually conserve oil on a large scale, rather than succumb to the above syndrome? Don't tell me "higher prices", since the whole point of ANWR drilling is lower prices.


The basic question is: why is what you admit to be a temporary lowering of oil prices just hunky-dory with you as a reason to destroy ANWR as a "pristine environment"?




For those of us who don't subscribe to the idea that anything goes if the sacred goal of temporarily lower oil prices can be attained, there is definitely hope. For other goals, Bush needs the support of Republican Senators he is alienating through this gambit.   His budget resolution assumes larger revenues from ANWR leases than $2.4 billion (in 2007 alone) to justify inclusion in the budget. When this becomes common knowledge there may be some re-thinking.

Above all, if the whole budget collapses in Congress (and it's being assailed now from both the liberal and conservative sides (conservatives want some guarantees budget cuts will actually be made)---the ANWR provision goes down (again).