Hannity falsely suggested no oil in areas already available to oil companies for drilling
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Sean Hannity falsely suggested that federal areas legally available for leasing by oil companies contain no oil. In fact, federal agencies have estimated that more oil exists on the tens of millions of acres of federal areas currently legally available for drilling than there is in the areas currently off limits to drilling.
On the July 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity claimed that "the left's argument" against lifting the congressional moratorium on some offshore oil drilling "has been that -- well, there's only 58 million acres, and the oil companies aren't drilling there now. That has been debunked. The reason they're not drilling there is because there's no oil there." Hannity later claimed, "If we were able to drill at the -- for example, the outer continental shelf, we'd have that oil within two years. There are 86 billion barrels of oil waiting for us there." But Hannity's suggestion that there is no oil available in areas currently being leased or available for leasing is false. In fact, agencies within the Departments of Energy and the Interior have estimated that more oil exists on the tens of millions of acres of federal areas that are leased or available for leasing to oil and gas companies than there is in the areas currently off limits to drilling.
As The Boston Globe noted in a June 20 article, "About 86 billion barrels of additional oil may lie offshore, according to the US government's Energy Information Administration," and then continued: "Of that amount, about 18 billion barrels are subject to the moratorium." Indeed, DOE's Energy Information Administration's 2007 Annual Energy Outlook stated that there were 18.17 billion barrels of "technically recoverable resources currently off limits in the lower 48 OCS." A similar report by the Federal Minerals Management Service (MMS) stated that "[t]he MMS estimates that the resources in OCS areas currently off limits to leasing and development total 18.9" billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil resources. That same report estimated that there were a total of 85.88 billion barrels of undiscovered technically recoverable oil resources on the OCS, irrespective of the moratorium. In addition, in its Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development, the Bureau of Land Management estimated that only 38 percent of oil accessible under federal land is covered by existing prohibitions.
Furthermore, Hannity's assertion that if the moratorium were lifted, "we'd have that oil within two years," is contradicted by the Energy Information Administration, which considered the likely effects of allowing the congressional and executive moratoriums on certain offshore drilling to expire in 2012 and stated: "The projections in the OCS [outer continental shelf] access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017."
From the July 16 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes:
HANNITY: Hey, Mr. Speaker, Sean Hannity. Thanks for being with us. I want to read to you -- the left's argument has been that -- well, there's only 58 million acres, and the oil companies aren't drilling there now. That has been debunked. The reason they're not drilling there is because there's no oil there. And the second argument they make is that, well, it's going to take 10 years to get this oil.
My first question is, well, what do these liberals think the price of a barrel of oil is going to be in 10 years? Are they confident that it's going to be lower? And Eric Bowling from our sister network, the Fox Business Channel, actually called the experts. If we were able to drill at the -- for example, the outer continental shelf, we'd have that oil within two years.
There are 86 billion barrels of oil waiting for us there. If we were to, you know, hit these really deep, deep waters, the maximum three to five years, and we'd be able to access this oil here. So why are they getting away with this argument that we don't need nukes, we don't need to drill, and we don't need coal?
DON'T LET THE FACTS GET IN THE WAY:
Sean never did like facts too much. In his world they're unnecessary. He just spouts off whatever he wants. He never has to worry about anybody correcting him on air.
This guy is a better case for the fairness doctrine than almost anyone out there.
So he makes flat out lies up like this, and then someone gets to, shall we say, correct him afterwards. I don;t see any problem with that.
"In fact." In FACT. Fact, fact, fact. Who cares about your so-called facts? It's all about SPIN. And I'm not talking "glass half full or half empty" spin. I'm talking about the kind of spin where you can with a straight face claim that there's not even a glass on the table in the first place!
To a modern age conservative spinner like Hannity, facts are stupid things.
Or as Stephen Colbert said, reality has a well known liberal bias.
know where they're finding lots of oil? north dakota.
http://www.kiplinger.com/businessresource/forecast/archive/The_U.S._Poised_to_hit_New_Oil_Gusher_080317.html
"no oil in areas already available to oil companies for drilling"
Someone should tell the oil companies then because they are wasting a lot of money leasing those fields...
Hannity vs. Facts...on his show on Thursday he asked a caller to name some accomplishments of Sen. Obama. Normally, callers know one or two but after that, Seannie begins to critize them for not knowing the "community organizer". This particular call knew his stuff and then made a reference to the WMD's in Iraq. Seannie actually told the guy that we recently found all this yellow-cake in Iraq which proves Saddam HAD WMD's. What an ass. He knows that stuff was there and under wraps.
Sorry for any Seannie fans, but this guy is going nuts. He is beginnig to repeat himself over and over concerning Obama. And now he wants to debate him, or should I say ask questions, and has thrown out a challenge. LOOK, Seannie, you are a radio talk show host. Obama is the Democratic candidate for the Presidency of the US. Your threats and challenges are childlike. Hell, we here at MMFA challenge you to appear on a thread. Are you chicken? Are you a coward? I'll go off the board and say you are a sissy.
Wolf, I guess the AP is now working for Fox news?
LINK to original article.
Great minds think alike.
(I flatter myself - haha!)
This material was not undeclared WMD, according to the article, however. It was already under control of the UN.
From the article:
"Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said."
But some jerky spy organization, the Brits, convinced our President, Cheney, that Saddam was trying to buy yellowcake from Niger in 1991(?). And our DECIDERS bought that info knowing that this other yellowcake was already in Iraq. Forgive me if I am confused or were our co-Presidents/DECIDERS confused which has resulted in the murder of many Iraqi civilians. Our troops were following orders..because that is what they do.
Using the ConLogic, if you want to purchase yellowcake, you must want to build a bomb. I am making the following statement hoping that the DECIDERS do not read it----Are those Canadians planning to build a bomb. When do we attack??????
But I give the DECIDERS credit, they are willing to appease, I mean talk with the Iranians even at any level. Guess the Brits heard what that Muslim Spy Obama( ;>) was saying about discussions with Iran and they passed it on to our highest officals. Thank God they listen to someone.
Succinctly, Hannity's nuts. (I admire the brevity of an earlier poster enough to plagiarize).
Hannity has been taking a lot of heat lately from Obama supporters, who phone in and politely describe their points, then politely take Hannity to task for misrepresenting Obama's cv/policies/religion/wife/or whatever Hannity just misrepresented.
Hannity handles all of these callers the same way: he dominates the call by interrupting and changing the topic to some obviously-prerehearsed anti-Obama schpiel. If the caller tries to break in to restore the original focus, Hannity gets into a snit and threatens to hang up. At the end of the call, Hannity tells the callers they can get the last word in ... they make their point and end the call politely ... then Hannity launches a monologue to refute their "last word".
And what about this? He constructed the "Stop Hillary Express", and then morphed it expediently into the "Stop Obama Express" after Obama's success. Because Obama was unknown, Hannity had to fabricate an Obama-centered white-water-type scandal out of nothing and on-the-fly. It took him only a couple of months, and as a consequence his product is fragile.
This has to be why he's nuttier than usual: the fear that his anti-Obama-house-of-cards won't hold up to scrutiny in November.
It is IMPORTANT to note that he's still abusing his access to OUR airwaves.
Bring back the fairness doctrine!
Seannie keeps blasting Sen. Obama for his connections with his "friends", Rev. Wright etc. And this coming from a man who surrounds himself with Newt Gingrich, the adulterer, Little Dick Morris, the well-known fabricator and always wrong seer and the biggest sissy-boy and liar, Karl, "I am afraid to appear in front of any committee even though I have nothing to hide", Rove.
Seannie, I will continue to refer to you as a LipJockey while I refer to Barack Obama as Senator and next President of the USA. Once again, Seannie come here to MMFA and test you debating abilities--not with me but some of the illustrious contributers. And Seannie, didn't you have that Journalist Emeritus Jeffie Gannon on your show. Does MMFA have any info on that? I'd like to send those dates to Seannie to show him why he is not in the big leagues and certainly not qualified to ask Senator Obama any questions.
Seannie, practice debating someone like Thom Hartmann then we, the Democratic Party will judge whether you are worthy. Remember, Seannie, all you have is a SHOW, not a government institution, not a Church, just a SHOW.
Hannity has got to be breaking some kind of law.
He most certainly has broken the Law of Averages for a Person's Quotient of Deceit.
And he most certainly _must_ be in the Guinness World Records for the most prolific of liars.
No doubt many here have emailed appropriate links to complain about this
________corrupt journalist._______________
I sincerely doubt anyone at Fox is taking heed.
In this regard this is one of the failings of the effectiveness MMFA (no offense intended).
I bellieve an actual organized bycott of his sponsors is necessary.
I guess I should have said
_____________corrupt broadcaster______
He certainly is no journalist.
Here's just a smiggen of why the left is keeping us from using our own resources:
http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=2802
http://www.angeles.sierraclub.org/hvtf/lng/index.htm
http://www.pacificenvironment.org/article.php?id=2778
http://www.abd.org.uk/pr/426.htm#note2
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=9895
It's all about lawsuits that stop progress and self-sufficency. Whenever anyone tries to keep our country ahead of the game, some tree-hugging eco-fascist/marxism uses the courts to slow or stop the process.
If Nancy Pelosi would ever allow a vote on accessing these resources, those same followers of Lenin would attempt to bury what's left of the Democrat party. That vote that about 75% of all Americans feel is appropriate, neccessary and safe is something the Pinapple Queen is too afraid to have American's be able to voice their opinions. Either show us the 2005 plan for lowering energy costs, or let our Representatives vote up or down on drilling offshore, madam speaker!
You're a troll. Those links have nothing whatsoever to do with Hannity's lies about the amount of oil available in already leased areas versus the amount of oil available in areas off-limits to leasing.
How about addressing the topic? You say you can't, because it's undeniable that Hannity lied? We know. So you try to distract us with unrelated links that prove nothing. We know.
Demanding that you be allowed to use up a finite resource as quickly as possible isn't going to happen, and shouldn't happen. There are dangers from accidents that we don't need to maximize. There are costs to tourism and quality of life that we don't need to make people pay for a very small or nonexistent lowering of the price of oil years from now. Just those potential pitfalls alone argue against drilling everywhere we can as soon as we can. But then you add the short-sighted argument from people like you that we should use up that finite resource as quickly as possible, and you've reached the height of stupidity!
We can find alternative fuels and we need to. There are many things that we use petroleum products for, not all of them easily replaceable. Why should we make life harder for people living 50-100 years from now?
Our culture had solved this issue of being selfish and short-sighted. We'd determined that killing off all of a species was wrong, and killing off so many of them that they couldn't thrive was wrong too. We aren't perfect at it, and certainly other species pay a price for being less smart and less mobile and adaptable than humans, but we learned to cohabitate our world in the past 100 years. With the Bush administration, we moved backwards. Rape the environment, don't worry about keeping the air clean and so put as many roadblocks in the way as possible. The Kyoto treaty? Let other countries work harder, but let us escape all burdens. Global warming? Ignore it, then acknowledge it but deny that man has any role, then acknowledge that man has a role but deny that it's really something we need to worry about because not everyone says we need to worry about it, and that pain will come years from now anyway, not during the last months of the Bush Administration.
People are getting it. They understand the moral and ethical corruptness of the Bush Administration and Republicans in general. Keep lying, "truthseeker". Keep ruining your party's chances.
The environment hasn't been raped and global warming is a scam.
MMFA did not address the fact that RIG and other oil drillers have said that oil could be pumped from some offshore locations in less than a year and at any location within 6 years. MMFA also did not address the fact that the government report assumed nothing would change to the drilling rules until 2012 thereby pushing all estimates back five years to start off with.
TinFoilHat, Thank God the oil drillers have something to say about this...by the way, do the leases that the oil companies already have, and will not drill, count into their revenues? And why would they want to drill now when our wonderful Representatives are going to demand alternate energy for the future? Doesn't make sense for them to "waste "thier money.
The worst President ever, Talkin' Ronnie, should have listened to Carter and continued America on the path of less oil dependence when he took office..why didn't he?
Global warming a scam..it is now official The Helmut delcares. I certainly will not say that it is true but to believe it is a scam is just plain foolish.
The environment hasn't been raped? Tell that to the rainforests. Tell that to the species going extinct every day.
Experts estimates that we are losing 137 plant, animal and insect species every single day due to rainforest deforestation. That equates to 50,000 species a year. As the rainforest species disappear, so do many possible cures for life-threatening diseases. Currently, 121 prescription drugs sold worldwide come from plant-derived sources. While 25% of Western pharmaceuticals are derived from rainforest ingredients, less that 1% of these tropical trees and plants have been tested by scientists. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm
Tell that to the fisherman off the Canadian Maritime provinces and elsewhere. The Northern Cod's population has decreased 99%, but you don't consider that rape?
One out of every six humans depends on fish for protein needs, yet 75 percent of the world's fisheries are over-fished or fished at their biological limit. By 1992, the cod fishery was closed in much of Eastern Canada, leaving more than 30,000 people out of work. By 2003, Canada's northern cod was so close to extinction that it was officially designated as endangered. The Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada (COSEWIC) noted that the northern cod population has collapsed more than 99 percent over 40 years. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3915783/The-end-of-the-line.html#abstract
Tell that to the whales that Japan and other nations hunted to near extinction. If that's not raping the environment I don't know what is. The whale hunters had no concern about hunting just enough whales to keep the population steady.
The story of whaling is, in brief, the rapid depletion and sometimes extermination of one population after another, starting with the easiest species to kill and progressing to the most difficult. That whales are economically valuable raises the obvious question of why there were no attempts to harvest whales sustainably. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/133385/conservation/272685/Overharvesting#tab=active~checked%2Citems~checked&title=conservation%20%3A%3A%20Overharvesting%20--%20Britannica%20Online%20Encyclopedia
bubbleblonde,
I think the late George Carlan said it best.
http://www.habitablezone.com/flame/messages/420992.html
Oh, and to address your non-point that it may not take quite as many years to drill in a few places as the Dept of Energy experts have said it would take.
1. They never said no oil could be drilled fairly quickly.
2. It has nothing to do with the lie Hannity told. They are not a news organization that needs to provide fair and balanced coverage of all the information about offshore drilling. They are tasked with debunking what Hannity said, and they did that. The fact that some drilling may start sooner is irrelevant to their point. All you're doing is trying to distract! Troll.
POV, another fine post. Hey, since we are talking about Hannity, how about this..Where are the WMD's that "We know where they are"(Rummy)? I am sure that it fits your once proud conservative agenda and you know the answer to that.
P.S. POV....Mrs. Pelosi is and will remain the Speaker of the House..Doesn't that just knaw at your guts. Pineapple Queen, isn't that Dole's wife?
Didn't you hear? Those WMDs were brought to *giggle* *snort* Syria.
I knew I couldn't finish saying that with a straight face.
Let's put some context on the issue of drilling for oil. It's necessary to recall these facts because the right-wing has been trying to make political gold out of the drilling issue aka talking point (and largely, but unfairly, succeeding).
1. In the 1960s and 70s Americans, recognizing the enormous environmental changes wrought by settlement and development of our sparsely-populated territories, decided to preserve what was left of the natural environment (NEPA) and to protect endangered species (Endangered Species Act). Conservatives (not to be confused with conservationists), particularly free-market capitalists resented these acts from the time they were incepted until this very day. Why? Because these acts obliged them to pay for market externalities they'd been able to avoid in earlier times, increasing their costs of doing business and decreasing the position they could operate on profitably on the supply-demand curve.
2. Think early 70's Oil Shortage. The age of the 4-cylinder car. After OPEC reopened its pipelines, why did so many Americans opt to support the gas-hog manufacturers? Answer: Reaganomics, the mechanism that brought about our current habit of over-consumption (not only are we Americans struggling with the bodily ills of overconsumption, but our automobiles are also oversized for the job). Economies must be made to "grow" for folks to prosper ... growth means constantly increasing production ... the ultimate Ponzi scheme. Remember, the 2008 drilling proponents are all Reagan worshipers.
3. Between 1994 and 2006 the Republicans had control of the US Congress, and could have enacted legislation at any time to develop alternative energy sources. They preferred to spend their time harassing President Clinton, whom they resented simply because he was a democrat who had wrested Bush1's second term away from them.
4. But time was on the side of the wanna-drillers, and they knew it. Sooner or later the US was going to find itself short on gasoline. And that will still be true even if the wanna-drillers get their way. Drilling will merely postpone our day of reckoning. And why should we have any confidence that the Republicans (who really really really want Congress back) would do a better job with another chance?
5. In this history, don't forget Bush2, who has driven the value of our dollar to a little more than 1/2 of what it was before he took office, due to the way the Fed (at his behest) handled the recession that followed the dot-com bust. That accounts for the majority of the runup in the price at the pump. Had Bush actually been fiscally conservative, gas would still be affordable.
6. The answer, according to republicans: rescind our long-established environmental protection and conservation acts to supply cheap oil to the consuming public! In their eyes, it is too much to ask of us to ... stop consuming so much, or to conserve some of these essential resources for future generations.
7. Before we blindly start drilling simply to reduce the pain at the pump, maybe we should reconsider the effects of burning up all the oil so we can keep moving around at will. Who will it profit? Right, besides Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh who drive around in SUVs provided to them for free by GM (and can sleep soundly at night thanks to their free sleep number beds).
And maybe we can look at our little grandchildren toddling around and ask ourselves why we want to fund Rush's and Sean's affluent lifestyles by engaging in a new cycle of production/consumtion of resources these kids will need. Those kids are going to have a hard enough time of it, don't you think, paying for Bush's wars?
Ann of alot of numbers,
If you want to return to the stone age, go right ahead. I think Ted Kazinski had made that choice as well.
I would prefer to live in a world will all people have the opportunity for comfort, individual liberty and choice. Those things are difficult when you use candles for light or some mercury based lighting mechanism and are foolish enough to ignore the gift of resources that God has given to us.
The leftists in the country want $9.00/gallon of gas (That's a whopping $5.00 above the algore line!) because they know right now oil means economic prosperity for those evile capitalists. They have done all that they can to undermine any energy progress through the courts (Remember the Kennedys are fighting wind power in their backyard.) and an ever enlarging bureacractic class that stifles personal intitiative and progress.
We would not be in this mess if we had recognized in the 90's that we needed more refineries (can use say 'class action suits'), nuclear power facilities (More suits thank you) and to open up oil/gas fields safely like ANWR.
So again, if you want to get personal with mother earth, go right ahead. But don't think that China, India or normal Americans would ever agree to your choice of lifestyle.
Oh, and by the way, the oil COULD be in marker alot sooner if you would get out of the way.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=16&issue=20080718
Well, your reply wasn't really a reply, since you didn't respond to any of my points, but you did jump to a bunch of erroneous conclusions about my lifestyle and opinions. I'll try again, succinctly, with those pesky numbers to keep things organized:
1. It was the republican congresses from 1994 through 2006 who failed to provide a solution to the inevitable energy crunch we are experiencing now. Entirely the fault of your right-wing leadership, who obtained the opportunity to lead congress with the promise of reducing the size of govt, and ended up tax-n-spending, then borrow-n-spending our way to the biggest budget deficit in the history of the universe: guaranteed to make our grandchildren into neosurfs. Thanks. Congress makes the laws; the president is charged with the task of executing the laws. That is why the presidency is called "the executive". It is the congress who is supposed to supply leadership, not the president. This is a fundamental constitutional mistake that Bush2 supporters make, when they promote his tyrannical power-grabbing of his two regretable terms in office. In the meantime, you can't deny that your team had plenty of opportunity, years in fact, to address and fix all the problems the country had (and still has). And what you fear: Americans realize this and the price you republicans paid in 2006 was ... just the start.
2. Your stated preference of living in a world where "all people have the opportunity for comfort" is laudable. This world you envision is, in fact, now unfolding in China and India, and has led to global competition for oil resources that is responsible for about half of the run-up in prices at the pump here in the USA. The other half of the run-up is due to unabating dollar devaluation, a direct result of the FEDs policy at the start of Bush2's first term, to increase liquidity of the monetary supply, to stave off the recession brought on by the bust in the dot com bubble. This was a purely political move that Greenspan knew might result in bubble-type speculation, and in fact did bring on the housing bubble; its bursting has brought the country to a fragile economic state unequaled since at least the Great Depression of almost 80 years ago. How you can interpret any of these facts in the context of some political opponent you imagine wants to revert everyone in the world to a stone-age lifestyle is beyond me. Maybe you are one of those posters who co-opts posts for amusement and profit. And I'm replying to make sure you don't profit from your sophistical post.
3. You post: "leftists in the country want $9.00/gallon of gas". You can prove that, of course ... and I'd appreciate it if you will. I googled it myself, and what I found was that right-wing extremists are claiming that is what the left wants, to make some political points. Not based in fact, mind you, just more right-wing spin. Again, Americans are on to you. You'll see in November.
4. ANWR is the (Alaska) national wildlife refuge. Such refuges are designated as roadless and consequently restricted for development. When we Americans set aside such areas for protection and conservation, we mean it. What we don't mean is that we intend, inspite of the designation of refuge status, that lazy corrupt republican leaders of the 1990s congresses will bide their time until peak oil occurs and crunch time comes while TAKING NO ACTION to address the nation's future energy needs, intending all the time to reverse the protective status of the refuge and let their oil-company buddies into the refuge to develop the oil resource. And this point has not been missed by those of us who want to conserve some natural resources for future generations of Americans.
4. I personally support nuclear energy.
5. You republican/conservative/neocons are desperately trying to make points by using the pump price against the democrats. However, I think it is your party that is responsible. That was the point of my original post.
I absolutely love the deafening silence emanating from Proud Conservative.
PC, where are ya?!
If a "tree hugger" wants to preserve some tree on federally-owned land so it can be hugged by future tree huggers, what makes you think your plans for consuming that tree should supercede the rights of the tree hugger? Show me in the Constitution, in case law, or in the federal register where your presumed right to consume the tree, or the oil, is to supercede the rights of other users who want the resource to be conserved.
PC, BLS.
With input such as yours, its going to be a long time before conservative and credible would appear to have any kind of association.
Its not my line but, The Stupid, It Burns!
If Sheer Insannity would read the House Committee on Natural Resources June 2008 report, he'd learn that oil companies have leased thousands of acres and completed so little drilling that it's very difficult to believe they know if there is oil there or not. Further, are oil companies permitted to bank permits or is it "use it or lose it?" Gee - with the Bush Administration running things - let me guess...
More drilling just isn't going to solve this problem. For years the Bush Administration has done nothing to solve America's energy problem. Once again this President Bush has proven to be far less a President than his Father - who signed the first offshore drilling ban.
Here's what the Energy Information Administration has to say about it:
The projections in the OCS access case indicate that access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. Total domestic production of crude oil from 2012 through 2030 in the OCS access case is projected to be 1.6 percent higher than in the reference case, and 3 percent higher in 2030 alone, at 5.6 million barrels per day. For the lower 48 OCS, annual crude oil production in 2030 is projected to be 7 percent higher—2.4 million barrels per day in the OCS access case compared with 2.2 million barrels per day in the reference case (Figure 20). Because oil prices are determined on the international market, however, any impact on average wellhead prices is expected to be insignificant. [emphasis added]
- Impacts of Increased Access to Oil and Natural Gas Resources in the Lower 48 Federal Outer Continental Shelf
For years the right wing nutz have screamed "Drill in ANWR!" Apparently this has worked to dupe a certain percentage of the rubes. It won't, however, solve this problem. Again, here's EIA on the subject:
Additional oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR would be only a small portion of total world oil production, and would likely be offset in part by somewhat lower production outside the United States. The opening of ANWR is projected to have its largest oil price reduction impacts as follows: a reduction in low-sulfur, light crude oil prices of $0.41 per barrel (2006 dollars) in 2026 for the low oil resource case, $0.75 per barrel in 2025 for the mean oil resource case, and $1.44 per barrel in 2027 for the high oil resource case, relative to the reference case.
Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Report #: SR-OIAF/2008-03 Released Date: May 2008
To finish those numbers - and shatter the "lower gas prices in 10 years" myth - there are about 20 gals. of gas in a barrel of oil; and the price of crude oil is about 75% of the price of a gal. of gas.
So in a best case scenario ANWR would reduce the price of gas less than six cents per gal. In other words, the average state tax of $.214/gal. has more impact on the price of gasoline than drilling in ANWR would. And this assumes the cost of drilling up there will be reasonable. And that is 10 years away.