there are two flaws in your thinking:

first, oil is a global commodity, so an increase in supply will drop prices everywhere. apart from in time of war, i doubt many care where the oil in their gasoline came from, just what it costs.

second, there is no reason the oil could not be transported by pipeline, which would seem to be a preferable solution in many ways anyhow.

ANWAR is a big target for oil-companies on the ‘We can’t be oil-independant because Congress won’t let us drill here, the bastards.’ front. But if ANWAR was opened up not a drop of that oil would end-up in American pumps. Since Exon Valdez the west-coast has blocked it’s ports from recieving oil-tankers, and modern super-tankers are too big for the Panama Canal. That only leaves shipping it across Three Oceans to get it to our main tanker-hubs on the gulf-coast, and what CEO in his right mind will mandate that when there are much closer markets?

Yes, the oil companies really want that Anwar crude.. so they can sell it to the pacific rim. Not that I blame them, and it might be enough to induce a slight supply-increase based dip in global gasoline prices, but anyone telling you it’ll bring us ‘oil-independance’ probably has a beach-house in Arizona he wants to sell you to.

Although I confess that I don’t know where one begins to sue other nations for colluding with each other, or what precedent that would set.

It seems like nations collude on all manner of things all the time.

We might treat them like we treat owners of online gambling sites. If you get caught on American soil we will arrest them for doing something outside of U.S. sovereign territory we deem “illegal”. I really would love to hear a congressional member defend why they have done jack shit in response to the WTO slap down we received for breaking the treaty through the Naziesque attack on online gambling (sponsored by Harrah’s).