Maybe on the melting. But what about the other damage to the ecosystem?

Sonar confuses dolphins. What are the vibrations from the drilling going to do to the marine life? What will the inevitable pollution from the rigs going to do to the rest of the ecosystem?

We're destroying this planet so we can live. It's quickly becoming a FUBARed situation. We need to use what we have before we throw it away for the latest and greatest. Oh wait. Throwing away for the latest and greatest is the "American Way" these days. Silly me.

Many do, yes. And I think the oil companies are among the worst.

No, not at all. There is a difference between profitibility and corporate greed.

In other words, as long as your bottom line is good, the rest of the world can go to hell? No wonder you like the big oil companies!

A 9% profit margin is not corporate greed.

Why do you believe this?
Please tell me where I said the rest of the world can go to hell? Or where the oil companies have said this?

I like companies that make money in a safe and rational manner. Despite what gets spewed on a regular basis (with virtually no rational argument with data to back it up), the major oil companies ARE responsible corporations.

Sure it is, if it is obtained illegally, unethically, or immorally.

Sub la Goon is right. The oil companies are running scared because the President they bought and paid for is going to be out of a job soon.

Unless things have changed, I don't believe the proposals for ANWR drilling are offshore. That's why the big supposed disruptions are generally to caribou.

Please provide examples of this behavior. I am curious how this opinion is formed.

Drill in protected areas

BENEFITS: Increased profit for oil companies, incremental delay in the exhasution of oil supplies.

DETRIMENTS: Non-zero impact to environment, to what degree is not ascertainable. Possibly catastrophic, definitely not none.

NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 130 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and possibly lead to environmental devastation in these regions. All with little to no effect on consumer oil prices in the meantime.

Continuing to Protect off shore and on shore environments

BENEFITS: Zero chance of drilling-related impact to protected areas.

DETRIMENTS: End of oil supply comes slightly sooner

NET RESULT: Either we run out of oil in about 100 years but have given important ecosystems the best chance of survival, or we successfully find alternatives to oil within the next 100 years and have given important ecosystems the best chance of survival. All with little to no effect on consumer prices of oil in the meantime.

To me, that's the long and short of the cost/benefit analysis. The only thing gained by allowing drilling is more profit for the oil companies (in the form of further reduction in oil speculation spending, none of which will be seen by the consumer). That alone is not an evil thing, but what societal motivation is there to start allowing it? There are plenty of other ways for small investors to make money in the stock market, it does not hinge on the oil companies. The only people who have a total vested interest in this move are major oil investors and executives. Other than that, everything else is essentially a wash with a non-zero risk of irreversible environmental damage. I can't see any way in which that's justified.

Major benefit you omitted in drilling that I believe is the biggest key (this also equates to a detriment on the no drill side):

Gradual removal of dependence on foreign oil and the effects of potential supply disruption in unstable areas of the world. This lowers the price of oil and shields it from some speculative pressures that have immediate and obvious effects on the economy.

It isn't about increased supply. It's about being sure that our supply - and therefore a large portion of our economic well being - is not subject to the whim of crazy men like Chavez and Ahmadinejad or terrorist action in the Persian Gulf region.

Okay, but over what time scale is "gradually"? It's going to be 20 years (I don't buy the 10 year time line) before we're even pulling it out of the ground in appreciable amounts and have a workable distribution network. Another 10 years beyond that it will maybe start to have an effect on our need for the world oil market. And then how long exactly will that last? That's going to run out eventually, in far less than the 130-150 years that world supplies are estimated to last. And we'll be right back where we started.

To me, there is one, and only one, endgame. Get off of oil. Delaying the depletion of oil, shifting the source of oil while we're depleting it are meaningless bandaids. We're dead if we don't get off oil and the window to do so is smaller than the time needed for any of this drilling to do us any good.

Equation remains the same.