I have a biased by somewhat informed take on the matter. I work for an engineering contractor which provides services to the North Slope of Alaska. I do not stand to directly benefit nor suffer from the opening or non-opening of ANWR if it occurs, but I'd like to make the following points from direct experience:

1) We don't really know how much oil is under ANWR right now. Exploratory drilling has to occur, along with seismic testing. The technology these days is a significant improvement over the past, because it enables engineers to form a 3-D 'model' of what is there. They need to bring up oil samples because important factors are: grade, viscosity, wax content, temperature. 60 Minutes did a pretty good show on this issue about 3 months ago with Leslie Stahl. They showed the difference between moving a rig over to a region to be explored in Winter when the tundra is frozen solid, and what it looks like when the exploratory wellhead has been capped and isolated after the work is done. Other than the wellhead area itself, which is roughtly 15' x 15', there is very little trace left on the land.

2)When an oilfield is in production, it requires that 6' depth of gravel be loaded onto a rectangular area about the size of 1 to 3 football fields. This allows a drill rig access to the area. From a dozen to 50 wells can be drilled from this one area due to the advanced nature of directional drilling. These areas are of course highly visible, but they are a small percentage of the total area which comprises the wilderness area.

3)Animal life. The main large mammals in the area are polar bears, grizzly bears, caribou, and musk oxen. It is highly unlikely that exploratory drilling, or production drilling, will affect these animal populations. This is based by observing animal populations in the areas already in production. It is somewhat harder to judge migratory waterfowl, I personally feel the effect would not be very harmful (but I am not an expert in this field, it's just that I've seen snow geese flying and nesting in areas under production). Musk oxen are an introduced species and are also not threatened by this kind of development.

4)The wilderness experience. There is no denying that putting an industrial production area in pristine wilderness is going to change the appearance of that area for the foreseeable future (foreseeable future = 40 years). The North Slope is primarilly flat tundra. There are no trees, no mountains. There are a lot of water drainages. It is a judgement call as to whether this is worth cancelling future development or not. That's why we have environmental interest groups, oil lobbyists, and the right to sound off on these issues. I have yet to hike into the region so I withhold personal judgement.

5)Oil spills. When people quote frequency and number of oil spills, they usually don't bother to explain that on the pipeline and pumpstations and on the North Slope, ANY spill is reportable, including a few drops. When vehicles get refueled, it is common practise to put an absorbent pad under the nozzle to catch any drops. Mistakes are made, spills and leaks do occur. They are usually located within minutes, and a cleanup effort is made. Since these facilities are on tundra at low temperatures, the spilled oil congeals, it's usually not hard to get at it all, and there is no penetration of the water table (Since there is no watertable, everything from a couple of feet down and deeper is permafrost). I can't speak to off-shore work, but ANWR is not an off-shore issue.

6)Pipelines. The Trans-Alaska pipeline was a very successful, expensive project, but the pipeline is not getting any younger. It is being reviewed as regards its permitting and maintenance, but everything has a lifetime. If we are ever going to utilize ANWR oil, it is better we do it while the pipeline is in good shape. The amount of pipelines added by ANWR in order to connect up to the existing Trans-Alaska Pipeline would be negligible by comparison. And in fact, it the pipeline while highly visible, does not affect the environment that much. It is the ROAD NEXT to the pipeline that matters, and this already exists.

7)Utilization of the resource. It is true that the oil from ANWR, however great in amount, is only an increment to what the US uses. That doesn't mean it's a negligible increment, or not worth pursuing. If it is worth producing, it will be worth billions of dollars to the economy. The jobs it will create is pretty much a political football, it will create a few thousand jobs directly, but where the unions get off turning that into hundreds of thousands is beyond me, unless they are implying some sort of overall economic stimulus.

8)Technology. The most advanced technology in recovering oil is taking place on the North Slope of Alaska. More oil is being recovered from existing pools than was thought possible back in the 70's.

9)Conservation. I personally feel the US is terribly wasteful of energy. In the age of NASCAR rallies and one-driver SUVs, it's absurd to argue that oil development not be tied to conservation (IMHO). But, we live in a capitalist society, by which I mean the oil price fluctuates freely (for the most part) between supply and demand and the low price of energy tells us that oil is not considered that valuable a product on a per unit basis. When the price of energy goes up, conservation will occur. As long as it is relatively cheap, you can expect to see more SUVs, and more NASCAR rallies, ANWR or no ANWR.

Have I been able to spread some 'oil on troubled waters?'