I moved to Alaska from Wisconsin 25 years ago for the adventure. I have been truly blessed, as my work has taken me from the most western point of the United States (Shemya) on the Aleutian Chain to the most northern and eastern point (Kaktovik) at the edge of ANWR.
Alaska is amazing; when you fly the 500 miles from Fairbanks to Prudhoe Bay, you see nothing but untouched wilderness, most of it off limits to development. Any type of development within the North Slope is very expensive; the oil companies constantly develop new ways to minimize development footprint, as this saves money and as a benefit minimizes environmental impacts. ANWR oil and gas reserves are unproven, but conservative estimates are 1 million barrels of oil per day for 30 years. Other conservative estimates are that, at the most, approximately 5 percent of the ANWR coastal plain would be impacted by oil and gas development.
Environmental groups tout that opening ANWR will have minimal effect on the price of gas at the pump; they fail to mention the huge continuing economic impact of sending our money overseas. At today's prices, if ANWR was producing oil, $134 million a day would be staying in the United States instead of going overseas. Most economists agree that every dollar in economic development spins off an additional $6 in goods and services. That equates to $804 million per day in direct economic benefit to the United States.
Environmental impacts are hard to quantify; the following is irrefutable, there are more caribou in the North Slope Porcupine herd today then there were 35 years ago when oil development started. There also are more Polar Bears on the North Slope today than 35 years ago. There are concerns about impacting caribou calving grounds in ANWR. The Porcupine herd does not always calve at the same location; the year President Clinton vetoed opening ANWR, the Porcupine herd calved in Canada within the Mackenzie oil fields. About 5,000 eco-tourists go to ANWR annually. Is it fair to preserve all of ANWR at the expense of the other 280 million Americans who would benefit from responsible development? Wisconsin has two fine senators; however, their opposition to opening ANWR is not in the best interest of the United States. No energy policy should exclude developing our resources in a responsible manner.
Alaska is amazing; when you fly the 500 miles from Fairbanks to Prudhoe Bay, you see nothing but untouched wilderness, most of it off limits to development. Any type of development within the North Slope is very expensive; the oil companies constantly develop new ways to minimize development footprint, as this saves money and as a benefit minimizes environmental impacts. ANWR oil and gas reserves are unproven, but conservative estimates are 1 million barrels of oil per day for 30 years. Other conservative estimates are that, at the most, approximately 5 percent of the ANWR coastal plain would be impacted by oil and gas development.
Environmental groups tout that opening ANWR will have minimal effect on the price of gas at the pump; they fail to mention the huge continuing economic impact of sending our money overseas. At today's prices, if ANWR was producing oil, $134 million a day would be staying in the United States instead of going overseas. Most economists agree that every dollar in economic development spins off an additional $6 in goods and services. That equates to $804 million per day in direct economic benefit to the United States.
Environmental impacts are hard to quantify; the following is irrefutable, there are more caribou in the North Slope Porcupine herd today then there were 35 years ago when oil development started. There also are more Polar Bears on the North Slope today than 35 years ago. There are concerns about impacting caribou calving grounds in ANWR. The Porcupine herd does not always calve at the same location; the year President Clinton vetoed opening ANWR, the Porcupine herd calved in Canada within the Mackenzie oil fields. About 5,000 eco-tourists go to ANWR annually. Is it fair to preserve all of ANWR at the expense of the other 280 million Americans who would benefit from responsible development? Wisconsin has two fine senators; however, their opposition to opening ANWR is not in the best interest of the United States. No energy policy should exclude developing our resources in a responsible manner.
