NELSON: ANWR -- Trillion-dollar Arctic cathedral

As a past government worker in environmental regulation I used to marvel at how benign an environmental threat became after penalties and offers of environmental "donations" were agreed on. Prior to that a "serious and irretrievable environmental threat or harm" had to cease and be totally remediated to keep the sky from falling.

"The proponents of ANWR oil development have signaled a willingness to divert a share of future revenues to other environmental purposes" It is the roads that open access that will destroy ANWR just as the roads into the rain forest of South America open the virgin forest. They must be removed at the end. TRUTH: Development will engulf all of ANWR in small parcels just as the other North Slope development has been. The estimated area covered in the more than 30 small deposits is 1.5-million-acres of coastal plain. The roads to connect them together will require hundreds of miles of roads. If the oil must be harvested, there will be much damage to one of the last unspoiled spots on the globe. The solution to this problem is in restoration. To insure such restoration is done, a fund should be collected from the beginning consisting of $3.00 deposited in trust for every $1.00 spent on development. Those companies that will develop and remove the resources must be made to completely finance the complete return of all developed areas to the original conditions. The restored area must look exactly as it does now. Such restoration must include the removal and restoration of all roads, airstrips, gravel pits, garbage, production facilities and pipe.

All of God's creation is a cathedral. The environmental illuminati have always chosen to worship Mother Earth in it rather that the Creator, however. ANWR should be drilled, along with other places where we know vast oil and natural gas deposits reside.

Good for a professor to speak out in realistic terms against the enviromental opponents' distortions. We need more like him among the tenured elite.

I have no plans for a future vacation to the north slope of Alaska, no matter how good the roads might be. Environmentalists have changed the meaning of conservation into preservation.

It is a rare oil field that does not contain much more oil than was originally thought could be recovered. Even after the exploration is over and all the surveys are completed most fields produce oil for years, and even decades after the last barrel of oil that was originally predicted is extracted. The price of oil has dropped now, largely due to economic conditions leading to decreased demand. But as the economy recovers the price can jump right back up. We need the oil and there is no sane reason we should not drill where the oil is. Unfortunately "sane" is not a work I associate with the enviromental extremists.

Facts Facts Facts! Being on the front line of the ANWR debate I was surprised at the accusations of this article toward pro-ANWR supporters. Those supporting this cause are generally very careful not to over exagerate the claims of what ANWR could mean to the nation. Large reductions in the price of gasoline, surface footprint size, and definitely not an end all solution to our energy crisis; all antagonistic accusations by the greens, but not by any ANWR supporter I've ever heard. A few pointers: Most of the 19 ANWR bills introduced this year funneled ALL federal royalties toward alternative energy production and the like, not a "small percentage" as claimed by the author. The notion that the NAS report is worthwhile is about as false as the claim that humans are feeding the animals at Prudhoe Bay. Its has been completely illegal to do so and not only do you risk jail time but you would certainly lose your job if you tried it. The wildlife absolutely does not benefit from human presence due to feeding. From first hand knowledge of operations I know for a fact what the NAS wrote in 2003 was 90% garbage. Have the caribou benefited from the oil industry? Nobodies feeding them grasses and mosses on the roadside, but certainly their numbers have increased from 5000 animals before production to over 32,000 today. Some "decimation" of the caribou as the greens claimed would happen in 1973. The State of Alaska will be getting 50% of royalties. The possible "25%" figure quoted is political nonsense, it simply wont happen. Thats tax free money by the way...you and I dont pay, the industry does, from its profits. The Technical reserve figures quoted from the 1998 USGS report were based on 37% recovery rate. Today the rate is above 60% so the figures given are wrong.....similarly the estimation of value is thus wrong. its much much higher! visit www.anwr.org for the facts, contact them for the real deal minus the rhetoric