Saw the same sort of thing when the Thunder Basin grassland in Wyoming was opened up for coal mining in the 80s. The grassland is large, and for the most part, featureless. So, various environmental groups, in their attempts to put a stop to the development, would show pictures of the Grand Tetons - on the other side of the state - for examples of what would be ruined.

Some things just never change...

This century will see more changes to ANWR than anything we could do to it. To the whole of the Arctic, and all life in the Arctic can do is adapt or die.

Get the feeling environmental extremists are not out to save the environment, but to freeze it in place for all time?

If invading Iraq can be based on threats to our national security, is it no more of a threat to our national security when OPEC decides to declare a war on us? I've heard all of the arguments about how much gas cost in 1980 and how the price is still not keeping up with inflation but we are so dependent upon foreign oil that it is a threat to our way of life. It's time to open ANWR and give even greater tax cuts to people buying fuel efficient vehicles.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the part where the exploration is expecting to take place already seeping oil and mucking up the environment?

Lord, I hope this isn't an April Fool's day joke.

2,000 acres sounds large to most people, but 3 square miles sounds small. By always saying 3 square miles instead of 2,000 acres we might find it easier to convince people that the area proposed for drilling is indeed a very small part of ANWR.

What was the environment like there, 30,000 years ago?

I would think the ecological strain of being under mile high glaciers would be far greater than anything caused by oil drilling.

As I read this post, I became more and more hopeful that JadeGold would appear in the comments to say something ridiculous as usual. What a disappointment.

Because remember ... if it isn't stunningly beautiful, it's not worth saving. Obviously if its 'only' unspoiled tundra, it has no inherent worth.

Let us not forget the teamsters, recently heard from a high up official with BP that the teamsters are helping the environmentalist whackos in the background on the current proposals. Does this mean they care for the environment? Not a bit they want all the oil to be trucked to the lower 48 on a huge highway to be built by union workers and use union drivers. Forget the existing infrastructure of pipeline and docks for large oil tankers already in place. Buldozing 1000's of sqare miles is what they want.

We lived in southern Illinois, Robinson/Olney and Lawrenceville area back in the early 80's. The economy was based on the oil and farm production there. Most of us remember the oil problems of that time. Today those oil wells for the most part sit IDLE, not because they are out of oil. The refinery finally closed a couple of years ago and was dismantled and sold to a third world country.

There is still oil in those wells we could pump.

Thanks to enviro whackos of John Kerry's ilk we can't use all the oil we do pump. We can only use what is termed "sweet" oil.

People like Teddy Kennedy don't want windmills in their back yard, but they want them in yours. BUT now that those windmills are killing birds they don't even want them in your back yard. Guess we are going to have to start riding bikes to make the enviro whackos happy.

They won't let us put up the cleanest burning energy plants...NUKES either. Strange their beloved pet poodle France has used NUKE power for years with little problems.

"... but these environmentals !&!"

France generates 85% of it's electricity from nuclear power plants.

After almost 15 years in the oil and gas business, I think I have a little better perspective that the "average" American. The advances in technology in the drilling business has come a LONG way in the last 30 years and even more in the last 10. Directional drilling has minimal impact to the environment (5 sq. surface miles per wellhead). If they couple directional drilling off the coast, all the better, if not, the disturbance to the tundra would be minimal. Why do we expect everyone else in the world to "disturb" their terrain to satify our needs and become BEHOLDEN to them for it. WE HAVE OUR OWN RESOURCES! Why not extract from our own territory with our advanced techology, regulations for safety and environmental concerns, not to mention a WHOLE lot of employment for the already skilled drilling and pipeline industry (you know, US tax on income and everything), while ALSO developing technology for alernative fuels. IMHO the Pipeline industry has been extremely lax in promoting its positives. Perhaps it has something to do with that this industry's labor is highly unionized. Why don't they stop stabbing themselves in the back by supporting the enviro-demos that are taking their union dollars and lobbying them out of some serious work? Cannot. Understand. Rant off./

I spent every summer and every Christmas in Alaska during my childhood (my dad lived there). As a kid I remember driving along the pipeline during winter, and seeing moose and other animals around the parts that stuck up out of the ground (it was heated, and so the snow melted, providing a little food and warmth). I also remember seeing pictures of the North Slope with a million caribou migrating through the facilities. A guy trying to get from his office to the shoreline would be stuck for hours as the caribou migrated in front of him. The former gov. Walter Hickel did more damage to the environment when he carved a road out of the Tundra (which never got finished), the effects of which could apparently be seen from space.

We have needed to drill ANWR for years, and doing so will not damage the environment if care is taken. The caribou will be glad for a warm migration stop too.

www.neiluchitel.com

ANWR suod not beopen

No matter how many of our own resources we bring into the picture we will still be dependent on foreign oil. If you assume the 1 in 20 chance that there is actually 9 billion barrels of oil economically recoverable at $24 a barrel (the current price being nearly $55), and that the peak production rates could range from 650,000 to 1.9 million barrels/day then realizing that the US uses around 20 million barrels/day you can see that there is a 5% chance that drilling ANWR will provide 9.5% of our daily consumption of oil, which means the US will have to obtain 90.5% of daily oil from existing production or foreign countries. That is BEST CASE scenario.

What you all really need to be worried about is the fact that America with a population of 293,027,571 (July 2004 est.) will soon be competing with China which has a population of 1,298,847,624 (July 2004 est.) for the world's resources. The US represents 5% of the world's population and uses around 25% of the world's resources...now that the other countries are catching up and wanting to live the lifestyle of your average American, we can all be pretty well assured to see continuing rising energy prices in the future, whether we drill ANWR or not.

I suggest you all read the Alaskan Fish and Wildlife website for ANWR which does a pretty good job explaining both sides but gives all the reasons why we should really be opposed to drilling ANWR...and it's not because it's pretty. You should also do some research on the natives in the area, some are for the oil (those that make their living or could off of the drilling) and some that are against it (those that depend on the carabou which they fear will decline should the drilling take place).

The 3 square miles does not include roads, pipelines, or anything else that isn't the actual drilling facility. The tracks from the seismic exploration in 1984 (the preliminary exploration)can still be seen across the tundra in ANWR. The ice roads required for exploration and transport should not be made with salt water (it will kill the plants) and fresh water is scarce in this area. The carabou depend on this small less-predated stretch of land (which is much wider in the other drilling zone leaving room for migration) to raise their young, and have no leeway if the drilling scares them out. The Gwich'in Indians depend on this migrating herd for more than 50% of their food source. This is a very different situation, and a fragile one.

This issue is much more complicated than you all have made it out to be. I also CANNOT. UNDERSTAND. CONSERVATIVES. Rant off/

I suggest you all read the Alaskan Fish and Wildlife website for ANWR which does a pretty good job explaining both sides but gives all the reasons why we should really be opposed to drilling ANWR.

The official policy of the State of Alaska is and has always been that ANWR should be opened. If there is a state agency arguing otherwise on its website, I can name 60 state legislators, a governor and a lieutenant governor who will be interested to know about it -- and a Fish & Wildlife commissioner who would be on the carpet as a result.