(Note: References mentioned in this text will be available at the end of Part II, to be posted soon.)

Sure, we're not neccessarily at our real-time best here, but we wanted to back this with the research and the facts.

So, here's the topic, straight from The New York Times: "House Shelves Alaska Drilling in Budget Fight."

Oil exploration and drilling in a pristine Alaska Wilderness. Desecrating the environment. Wiping out wildlife. Hmm. Really?

To quote the first couple of paragraphs from the NYT article…

"House Republican leaders were forced to jettison a plan for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska on Wednesday night to save a sweeping spending bill, a concession that came one day after the party suffered significant election losses.

In dropping the drilling plan and a second provision, on coastal exploration, the leadership was trying to win over moderates in the party to enhance the chances of winning initial approval on Thursday of more than $50 billion in spending cuts demanded by House conservatives. But the decision is likely to meet objections from the Senate, where senior lawmakers are insisting on the drilling plan, a priority for President Bush."

So, there's still a chance when the issue comes to the Senate. And what? This could be a positive thing? Here's why.

Drilling in the ANWR would create between 250,000 and 735,000 jobs. The country needs those jobs -- desperately. Hopefully, they would not go to illegal aliens and, better yet, perhaps a good portion of them could go to Gulf Coast residents who just happen to have petroleum industry experience.

Alaska's North Slope oil field has contributed over $50B to the nation's economy. The North Slope is on it's way down; production is decreasing. We need a new, substantial flow of not only oil but income into federal coffers if we're to have a prayer of lowering the federal deficit.

It's not only about what we pay at the pump. As it stands now, though, gas prices have increased since the Gulf Coast disasters, and oil company profits have skyrocketed. Think about the everyday functions of gasoline and diesel fuel alone. It also goes beyond what's coming out of our pockets at the pump. My home is heated with oil. The prospect of tripled or quadrupled home heating oil prices this winter scares the socks off of me. In 2004, petroleum products contributed about 40.2 percent of the energy used in the U.S, with natural gas and coal at only 23 percent and 22 percent, respectfully. (All the rest — nuclear, hydroelectric, geothermal, etc. — amount to 14 percent.) So, just as a baseline, figure out how much more everything will cost since 'everything' is shipped by trains, trucks, and planes -- all of which use petroleum-based fuels. Added costs are already rippling throughout the supply chain. That's coming our of your pocket and those of every business from Joe's Mechanical Engineering (Don't forget overnight mail — all based on gas, diesel, and jet fuels.) to General Motors. Oh, and don't forget lubricants, plastica, pharmaceuticals, some food items, and countless other products that depend on free-flowing petrol taps.

While it will take years to develop the ANWR, at least relief would be in sight.

Here's one of those maybe-facts, but it makes sense, so I'll go with it. According to ANWR.org, the Central Artic Caribou Herd which migrates through Prudhoe Bay has grown from 3.000 animals to 32,000 animals. "The artic fields have very healthy brown bear, fox and bird populations equal to their surrounding areas." Nature finds a way. If the rare, blue Sharpie-colored, iPod-playing mooseling becomes extinct, oh well. Nature probably would have made it extinct, anyway. IF oil is discovered within the ANWR (still no guarantees), only eight percent of it would be considered for exploration. The upshot? Less than half of one percent of the ANWR would be affected by production activity.

So, it seems...SEEMS... that drilling in the ANWR won't impact either wildlife or the environment to a great degree.

[Ed. Update: Part II follows here...]