The ANWR Dilemma
Arctic Refuge Data Used to Back Both Sides of Energy Debate

Arguments Used by Drilling Opponents:

• According to the U.S. Geological Survey, if world oil prices hover around $24 per barrel, it would be economically feasible to take 3 to 5 billion barrels from the reserve over a 50-year period.

• USGS: If oil prices fall below $16 per barrel, there is no economically recoverable oil at ANWR.

• The U.S. consumes 7.1 billion barrels a year, translating ANWR's output to only a six-month supply.

• Turning oil buried in ANWR into gas at the pump would take 10 years.

• Even at its peak in 2070, the refuge would produce less than 2 percent of the U.S.'s energy needs.

• Oil drilling and exploration would disrupt wildlife, particularly Porcupine caribou and polar bears.


Arguments Used to Support Drilling:

According to the Department of the Interior:

• There's a 50 percent chance that 7 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil lurk beneath the refuge's coastal plain.

• Studies show nearby Arctic caribou herds have thrived, more than tripling their population size over the past 20 years, despite oil development on Alaska's North Slope.

• Technology exists and is in place elswhere to minimize impact on the enviroment.

Congressmen in Favor Counter:

• If found, some oil will be flowing well within 10 years.

• The 1002 Area is not pristine wilderness. It already contains a village, an airport, homes and businesses.

• The proposal before the Senate includes seasonal drilling restrictions to prevent disturbance during the caribou calving season.