Wow, I guess my education, coupled with my 10 years working in the environmental protection and consulting industry has led me astray.  I realize now that I know nothing.  Thanks for pointing that out.

Before I hand in my resignation though, let me just respond to a few of your, uh, "points":

I should point out, however, that your potential impact applies to all offshore wells, not just the proposed ones.

Awesome, thanks for pointing that out.  It was intended to reflect comparitavely because, as you well know, direct impacts from as-yet-unconstructed oil derricks cannot be accurately quantified, save estimation.  

What we scientists tend to do in these situations is use a comparative analysis to form a predictive model.  The models are based on data, you know, gathered from observations of similar or nearly idenitcal scenarios.

Then again, maybe you failed to notice that the last three bullets points are projected impacts from a single oil rig.  Not all oil rigs as you assert.  Just one.  

So, the better question would be: how much additional impact will the proposed offshore wells have, compared to the ones that already exist.

Better question than what?  Did I pose a question?  No matter, let's see:

Let the number of proposed oil rigs off the coast of Florida equal X.  Potential impacts will reflect as Y.

X*90,000 = Y metric tons of drilling fluid and metal cuttings into the ocean.

I'll spare you the rest of the math, as I assume you'll get the idea.

For instance, how many fish are currently dying because of our current gasoline consumption, and how many additional fish would die because of the proposed oilweels?[sic]

What specifucally do you mean by "current gasoline consumption"?  Without defining the implications of this variable, the question cannot be answered.  But you probably know that.  Should we include catastrophic spills, construction, operations, and maintenance in the analysis?  What about decommissioning?  That's a pretty nasty affair too, you know.

Are we talking solely about the impacts of offshore oil rigs, or do we need to expand our conversation to include the greater issue of climate change?  Surely, our "current gasoline consumption" contributes to that as well.  Do you mean to ask how many fish are dying as a result of global warming?  Oh, and that begs the question:

What specifically do you mean by "fish"?  Are we to exclude other marine life?  Which fish are important enough to consider?  Commericial fisheries?  What of the impacts to other ecological elements such as marine mammals, microbiotics, and aquatic flora?  

And as to how much would it help?  I would say that a year's worth of drivign [sic] for the US fleet is a very substantial amount... because all of our known oil assets combined addup to about 50 years worth of driving.  I would also say that noone really knows how much oil we will get from ANWR.

Adding ONE year's worth to an existing FIFTY is substantial?  How do you figure, particularly given the known impacts of such an endeavor?

We can't know how much oil can be drawn from ANWR until the deed is done, you're right on that.  We can however estimate.  A U.S.G.S. report estimated that there is a 5 percent likelihood of finding 5.15 billion barrels of oil in the Refuge, and a 95 percent chance of finding 148 million barrels of oil - a projection substantially lower than their 1989 estimate of a possible maximum amount of 11.67 million barrels of oil (5 percent likelihood) and the minimum projected amount of 697 million barrels (95 percent likelihood).

Here's the deal:  oil is a nonrenewable resource. Once oil and gas is extracted from the land, it's gone, baby, gone. If our national security objective is to limit reliance on foreign oil imports and create a sustainable long-range energy policy, there are better ways of achieving it - such as improving the fuel efficiency of all our goddamned cars. If we can hold relatively constant the production of automobiles, even a gradual change in current fuel economy standards would reduce demand very significantly - far more than could be produced by extracting oil from the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge.

Finally, the paper you cite from surfrider.org is total BS.

Offshore oil/gas drilling is NOT the slowest/dirtiest/most expensive way to produce energy.  That honor would go to Canadian tar, or to ethanol.  Offshore rigs cost about $15/barrel ~ this is more expensive than Saudi oil ($3/barrel) for sure, but it is substantially cheaper than Canadian tar ($50/barrel).

And no, there are no cheaper, faster AND sustainable energy solutions~ every form of sustainable energy is substantially more expensive.

Uh, no it isn't.  You're free to argue that Tar and Ethanol are "dirtier", and I welcome the point of view.  I happen to have a different opinion (informed by my younger brother, who's a biologist specializing in marine fisheries).  

The potential adverse impacts of offshore oil exploration are vast and cascading, having implications on land, sea, and air.  Further, the potential for impact to something as critical to human survival on earth as the food chain, makes these ugly derricks pretty damned "dirty" in my book.  Of course, we obviously have a different ranking system.

Finally, with Democrats leading an agressive investment in technology, research, and development of viable alternative energy options, I'm confident we can kick the oil addiction almost entirely.

I do a lot of compliance work for the solar, wind, and hydropower industries, and can affrim first hand that, even under the yoke of Bush, we're making great strides.  Imagine what we can do with Obama in the Oval Office and a Dem majority in the House and Senate...

You know, on second thought, I think I'll keep my job.

Totally.  See my comments upthread.

Point taken re regulation.
However, are supplies really tight?  I often hear not, though obviously they are tighter than in the past, with the greater industrialization of China, India et al.

Isn't most of the present concern re Price rather than Supply, and price is up because of lower US dollar i.e. our debt and interest payments, as well as speculation and the huge amount used by US military? (Didn't I read that US military uses 1% of US supply?)
 

The more assets you have (including the ability to pull oil from ANWR), the sooner you have them, the better off you will be.

The oil in the ground is an asset.  It continues to be an asset even after you sell it.  It just changes from a long term investment into cash.  Current assets like cash aren't generally thought of as strategic assets.  That is why you are contradicting yourself.  Once oil becomes cash it stops being a strategic asset.  

You can try holding your reserves for as long as you want, but you run the risk of having those reserves be worthless when the alternative is discovered.

The idea that oil reserves are going to be worthless in the next 100 years seems far fetched to me.  We use petroleum products for many many things besides energy.  When do you expect us to have a substitute for plastics or asphalt?  

it will require oil to transition away from oil.  I'm not an engineer but aren't plastics an oil product?  And even if we develop cars that don't burn oil aren't the bodies made of petroleum products?

We can't go back to metals and wood as we would  deplete those in no time.  Have to wonder when we will start mining the asteroids...not such a sci-fi idea anymore I think.  We live in interesting times and going to get more interesting.

I wasn't trying to undercut anything.  I responded to part of your actual argument in a different comment.

I'm seriously just wondering why we suddenly have Jerome, 12 dogs, and yourself, Clinton supporters all, very suddenly posting diaries about how maybe we should be drilling for oil offshore.

It's a very sudden reversal of Democratic policy.  There's nothing wrong with that, we can have that argument, but you don't expect at least three people to have the exact same sudden change of heart, at the same time.

The only explanation I can come up with is, perhaps someone on a pro-Clinton site posted this argument, then you and Jerome and 12 dogs all read it, thought "hey that's a good point" and decided to come make the point here as well.

Oh, I almost forgot this one.  aliveandkickin might well be Patient Zero.