Give me an F'ing break... This film is so biased and loosely thought out as to be worthless.

After every paragraph of discussion in the film, ask the person on screen "So then having another 4-11 billion barrels of oil pumped domestically would hurt us then in that regard?"

The environmental angle at the end is a total crock. Oil company employees probably cant even fart on the tundra without a 1 foot thick rubber shield in place. I've been to Prudhoe Bay and walked around, dont believe ANY images on any film showing anything dirty, oily, spill-like.

Oh and the cartoon "as a matter of fact, you have to drill X holes to even find a good oil source"... looked a bit 1960's to me, it omitted directional drilling and the other 40 years of advances in locating petrol underground.

I'm not arguing for petrol dependance but if that was the best "Keep ANWR closed" film they can come up with...

I don't think that having the 4-11 billion barrels would be a *bad* thing. But the video is correct that it would not lower gas prices, nor would it lower our dependency on imported oil by any considerable amount. If anything, using ANWRs oil would probably result in a loss of the economies of scale that the Saudis enjoy, potentially leading to relatively higher prices (though I don't know what kind of premiums we pay to import).

Deathcow, I think you are right that a more reasonable anti-drilling vid could be created. That being said, if we consider the average Google Video user, I think they probably hit the mark.

I'm with you on the old cartoon thing, as well as the dirty images argument you make. As far as I know, Prudhoe bay is almost completely protected now, isn't that right? Some "creative" splicing seems to be involved here...

Anyways, hope this makes it out of the queue. Good post plimmin.

I also think that the vid takes on too big of a scope...tackles global warming, oil dependence, the economy, renewable energy, all in 13 minutes. Not too sure about how they were hoping to pull that off.