Energy issues likely to be on voters' minds

(topic overview)
CONTENTS:

The banned offshore reserves hold about 18 billion barrels of oil, which sounds like a lot unless compared with daily global demand. (More...)
With oil prices reaching record levels on a near daily basis and consumers paying more than $4 for gasoline President Bush has once again called on Democrats in Congress to lift the ban President Bill Clinton put into place against drilling in ANWR. There are currently 17 different bills in Congress calling for drilling in ANWR. The issue has become such a centerpiece of the presidential debate that Arctic Power, an ANWR lobbying group that has received tens of millions of dollars from Alaskan state officials, has reopened its Washington, D.C. office in hopes of winning support from lawmakers to back the issue. (More...)
"We need an energy plan now and although ANWR won't be the solution, it should be a component of that plan." (More...)
I support domestic drilling as part of our energy solution, but we've got to be smart about it. (More...)
Experts agree that at that level ' without adding new supplies of oil ' the pipeline could not continue to operate, shutting down all production in the North Slope and turning a multi-billion dollar asset into scrap metal. (More...)
To say or suggest that "the refuge" - meaning ANWR's entire area - would be opened for oil and gas exploration is completely false. (More...)
At last a sensible plan for oil development is emerging from Congress, but without the support of congressional leaders. (More...)
"There is tremendous legal attention on oil and gas development participation in new areas. (More...)
Four months and $1 a gallon later, a full 50 percent were ready to suck oil from the refuge. (More...)
I think we need to go, in an environmentally sensitive way, to take that oil out.''' (More...)
The vast majority of ANWR will be completely unaffected by drilling. (More...)
On Dec. 6, 1960, the U.S. Interior Department set aside most of the land by administrative caveat "for the purpose of preserving unique wildlife, wildness and recreational values" after a congressional effort to establish the refuge failed. (More...)

SOURCES

FIND OUT MORE ON THIS SUBJECT

The banned offshore reserves hold about 18 billion barrels of oil, which sounds like a lot unless compared with daily global demand. If all the off-limits offshore areas and Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were open to drilling, they could produce about 1 million barrels a day at their peak before trailing off, the Energy Information Administration estimates. That represents a little more than 1 percent of the nearly 85 million barrels a day produced worldwide. [1] I propose we open up Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore areas to drilling for oil, then put 50% of all lease revenues into a dedicated fund that would finance a Manhattan Project to develop environment-friendly, renewable energy solutions within a specific time frame.[2]

According to Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association in Anchorage, Alaska's two big areas under production, the Cook Inlet/Kenai Peninsula and the North Slope, are begining to deplete. "Other areas to develop are in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the National Petroleum Reserve, the Beaufort Sea and the Chukchi Sea," Crockett said. If they can be opened to drilling. Williams and the other six believe a profound shift in public sentiment is under way, which is why they visited Prudhoe Bay, ANWR, and a handful of villages in the area.[3] The focus of the day is on opening the entire Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska to drilling. Some folks claim current restrictions in these areas are the only thing standing in the way between consumers and cheaper gas. It's a quick and easy fix, they say. Here are some of the things they don't tell you. Millions of acres of the OCS have already been opened up for leasing and domestic exploration, but in many cases, the oil companies have chosen not to significantly increase their production there. Instead they are buying up leases to these lands, but not drilling.[4]

Having just returned from my second visit to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, I don't know whether to laugh or to cry upon hearing President Bush once again call for drilling in the refuge as a solution to our escalating energy costs. He apparently is unaware that recently released U.S. Energy Information Administration data indicate that at peak production, despoiling the Arctic Refuge would lower the price of gas by less than 4 cents a gallon, and it would take at least a decade to even begin oil production. The world has grown increasingly sophisticated in its knowledge about the economic and ecological costs of oil.[5] President Bush's proposal to lift the ban on offshore drilling by opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and lifting restrictions on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah and Wyoming will not reduce the price of gasoline at the pumps. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment Committee, said: 'This proposal is something you'd expect from an oil company CEO, not the president of the United States. Bush is proposing giving away a natural resource that belongs to the American people to his cohorts, the big oil companies.[6]

There has been an inordinate amount of media attention focused on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as the answer to our energy woes. It isn't just ANWR. The real issue is whether America is taking advantage of every energy resource we have - shale oil, liquefied coal, natural gas, gas from coal, off-shore drilling, nuclear power, solar, wind, bio-fuels and electric battery powered cars. Will it really take five to 10 years for us to realize the benefit of new oil extraction? No. The moment we prove serious about capturing these reserves, the price of oil will come down because there is a significant psychological component to market speculation.[7] We know that new oil drilling and exploration will not lower gas prices anytime soon; some experts suggest as long as five to seven years. Increased drilling -- whether it's off shore or in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge -- needs to be part of an aggressive energy plan that also includes conservation and further development of non-petroleum-based energy, such as biofuels, wind and solar power, along with nuclear.[8]

OMAHA, Neb. - U.S. Rep. Adrian Smith is spending the weekend in Alaska to investigate whether allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a good idea. Smith said Saturday that he believes America needs to pursue all the energy sources available to meet its needs. "We have such a great need for all the energy sources that we can get, especially domestically," said Smith, who represents western Nebraska's 3rd House District.[9] Today, with the price of oil over $145 per barrel, resulting in a nation average gasoline well over $4 per gallon, the frenzy to become less dependent on foreign oil has prompted oil suppliers to once again look at Alaska. One contentious topic currently under debate: Should the U.S. allow an increase of oil drilling in a remote northern area of Alaska known as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)? Proponents of both sides of the argument have used photos showing contrasting views of the Alaskan wilderness to help illustrate their arguments. Those against the drilling use pictures of pristine mountains, teeming with wildlife and beautiful forests, while those for drilling show pictures of a frozen, barren wasteland.[10] For instance, the big prize of the new oil drilling boondoggle would be the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. If drilling this, one of the last complete ecosystems left in the Western Hemisphere, would start right now, consumers would not see the first drop of fuel until 2018, it would take another decade to reach peak production and even then it would lower gasoline prices by just three cents, according to federal estimates.[11] The president has also urged Congress to take other steps, including drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This currently restricted area of northern Alaska could produce roughly the equivalent of two decades of Saudi Arabian oil, based on recent production rates.[12] The Nevadan and nine other House Republican freshmen are scheduled to tour the Prudhoe Bay oil field in Alaska and the "10- 02" area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge that for years has been the center of oil drilling debates.[13] Oil drilling began in Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, in the mid-1970s. Parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain could look like this if they are opened for exploration.[14]

ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Seven candidates for Congress from the Lower 48 say the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be opened for oil drilling after seeing the place for themselves.[15] Associated Press Writer 7:31 PM CDT, July 17, 2008 ANCHORAGE, Alaska - Seven congressional candidates from across the country visited the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this week, hoping the unusual campaign stop would draw support from voters battered by high fuel prices and a lethargic economy. The candidates, all Republicans, said Thursday that the trip cemented their support for drilling in the refuge and vowed to cast their votes accordingly if elected to Congress. "Our districts are crying out for help on these energy issues," said Craig Williams, a former assistant U.S. attorney who is running in suburban Philadelphia.[16]

Three of them, including former U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel, are running for office in Indiana and others are candidates in Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Wisconsin and Utah. Most, but not all, of their opponents appear to be against ANWR drilling. The hopefuls have won press attention in their hometowns for visiting ANWR. They said the trip was about seeing the area for themselves. They talked about how their home states are suffering from high gas prices and said domestic drilling should be a part of a national energy plan. The candidates said they were struck by how small the proposed drilling section was compared to the size of the refuge, by environmental protections at North Slope oil fields, and by support for drilling among Natives they spoke to in Barrow and Kaktovik.[17] President Bush wants Congress, especially the Democrats, to open the ANWR and other protected U.S. areas to drilling "to increase supply to take the pressure of gas prices" before the August congressional break. Considering what the conservatives have gotten away with over the last seven years, why not grant their supporters one more oil patch to play in. If there is more U.S. oil available today, what makes us believe it will come to the U.S. at cheaper prices? If China and India will pay more for that same oil and an oil company can make more money selling it there where do you think that oil is going? It is criminal for a public company to not be attempting to maximize profits. It is even harder to ignore the reports from President Bush's Energy Department experts stating that it would take 10 years to get ANWR oil to market and five to 10 years for the other protected U.S. areas. In 10 years, there is a slim chance that this additional oil will offset the growing global demand, since only so much can be produced in any given year, starting no sooner then 2013. All Americans should be outraged by the opportunistic and egregious attempt to open these protected areas now, since Republicans are once again preying on vulnerable and suffering American citizens. Americans are being sold the myth that opening up these areas will be a quick fix and an easy way out of our oil dependency.[18] The balance sheets and long-term outlook of the oil industry will benefit the most if conservative fear tactics succeed once again. The bottom line is, when you hear any politician saying we need to open up ANWR and the other protected areas to help the American people now, they are lying to us again. Given the short-term realities, ask yourself why are the conservative-right politicians so adamant about pushing for these reserves to be open? In the long term, who is benefiting the most? It's certainly not the American people, our economy or our environment. Or maybe they have been watching so much of Fox News that they actually believe it will take money away from Iran and Iraq and make the U.S. much safer. Unfortunately, Sen. McCain is now beholden to the same powers that funded and orchestrated the installation of George W. Bush as president, and must publicly state that he supports the political rhetoric to secure this coveted oil patch for the oil industry. Our Sen. Sununu is no different: he cannot stand against the party leaders when he needs money for an election. There is no question where the audacious Jeb Bradley stands, after rubber-stamping the Bush administration for four years, he wants the N.H. 1st District to hand over our congressional representation to the borrow-and-spend Republican Party again. I cannot forget that a random sample of FEC reporting data I took during the fall of Bradley's last failed campaign showed that around 80 percent of his financial support was coming from out-of-state supporters and PACs. It is clear: he was not representing New Hampshire in Congress.[18]

Implicitly, the Senator McCain and President Bush plan blame the environmental movement for hand-cuffing the country’s energy alternatives by opposing opening more coastal areas to oil drilling. What neither Senator McCain nor President Bush would tell you is that Big Oil already has access to 6,000 offshore leases that they are not using. The federal Minerals Management Service reports that out of the almost 9 billion barrels of oil that are thought to exist offshore, 80 percent of them are already open to the industry, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Senator McCain insists this would be a great idea, since “exploiting those reserves would have a psychological impact that I think is beneficial. As the New York Times opined, “The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power - Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney - exit the political stage.[11] President Bush is pushing again for exploration in ANWR. The oil industry continues to point to expansion on Alaska's north slope as a way to decrease dependence on imported energy. Those calling for drilling say oil development would barely touch ANWR, disturbing just 2,000 acres of a 19.2 million-acre outback. Exploration would not tromp on the spectacular Brooks Range mountains or their scenic foothills. It would be limited to the pancake-flat coastal plain along the Arctic Ocean. While their argument has not triumphed during decades of appeals the refuge has become ground zero in the ongoing fight between environmentalists and the oil industry they sense a shift.[14] President Bush is pushing again for exploration in ANWR. The oil industry continues to point to expansion on Alaska's north slope as a way to decrease dependence on imported energy. Exploration would not tromp on the spectacular Brooks Range mountains or their scenic foothills. It would be limited to the pancake-flat coastal plain along the Arctic Ocean. "It can move some politicians." They say, it is a critical part of the larger ecosystem. Predators such as grizzly bears and wolf packs follow the caribou.[14]

With oil prices reaching record levels on a near daily basis and consumers paying more than $4 for gasoline President Bush has once again called on Democrats in Congress to lift the ban President Bill Clinton put into place against drilling in ANWR. There are currently 17 different bills in Congress calling for drilling in ANWR. The issue has become such a centerpiece of the presidential debate that Arctic Power, an ANWR lobbying group that has received tens of millions of dollars from Alaskan state officials, has reopened its Washington, D.C. office in hopes of winning support from lawmakers to back the issue. [19] In the long run, it likely would not significantly affect oil or gasoline prices. The Energy Information Administration this year said that oil from the refuge would have only a small effect on global oil prices. Assuming Congress approved its opening, it would take about a decade before the refuge could start producing. Smith went to Alaska with a group of his fellow Republican Congressmen. "It's so important that we look into more than just one single source of energy," Smith said. He said U.S energy policy should be friendly to petroleum. The idea of drilling in the refuge is popular in Alaska, where roughly 85 percent of the state's general fund comes from oil royalties, and hearty support comes from both sides of the aisle.[9] Clearly, oil prices are set on the world market, and the United States will never drill itself to energy independence. The same EIA study, using the most current U.S. Geological Survey assessment of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain, concluded that when production peaked in 20 years, Arctic Refuge oil would make up less than 0.6 percent of world oil production, and only 2.4 percent of U.S. oil consumption.[5]

If drilling were OK'd today, the government estimates it still might take 10 years before oil began to flow. At its peak, the coastal oil field might pump just 1 million of the 87 million barrels of oil harvested daily worldwide. Energy Information Administration estimates suggest that ANWR drilling could cut U.S. imports to about two-thirds of its oil -- rather than 70 percent -- and that gas prices might drop a penny or two a gallon. Even that change could be wiped out if Saudi Arabia alone curtailed its production slightly to account for a global increase in production.[20] Oil shale in Western states might be significant enough to one day exceed imports from Saudi Arabia, but it faces tough technological hurdles to become reality. "It is sort of meaningless in the sense that it's such a large resource base and we're so far from producing it," said Philip Budzik, an oil and gas analyst at the U.S. Energy Information Administration. "It's not going to be tomorrow, and it's not going to be in 10 years." Even an advocate of expanded drilling and mining says it should be done in tandem with an aggressive government effort to lower consumption, which he says is the quickest route to lower gas prices. "The low-hanging fruit is not energy production, it's conservation," said Robin West, an energy consultant who ran the U.S. offshore drilling program while assistant secretary of the Interior under President Ronald Reagan.[21]

As Americans continue to pay over $4 per gallon of gas, pressure to act keeps growing in Washington. Both legislators and the Bush Administration are scrambling for solutions, offering conflicting proposals regarding oil drilling in Alaska and in U.S. coastal waters. While America'''s politicians struggle to come up with an answer to the country'''s energy woes, its most lauded ex-politician says he has all the answers. Al Gore, the Nobel-winning rock star of climate change, will outline his plans for an American '''energy revolution''' in a speech today. Just as John F. Kennedy set his sights on the moon, Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years, an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace.[22] If we began drilling today in ANWR, where an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil lie sleeping, it would reduce the price of crude oil per barrel only by about 50 to 75 cents, and we might see that relief 17 years from now, according to the U.S. Energy Department. The same goes for drilling off the continental shelf: Americans wouldn't see any oil until 2030, according to the Energy Information Administration.[23] Designated by President Carter and Congress nearly 30 years ago for energy exploration and production, the 10-02 Area's 2,000 acres (out of ANWR's 19 million acres) contains some 10 billion barrels of oil, and possibly more, which is currently being held hostage by a Democratic leadership that is shockingly out of touch with the wishes of a large majority of Americans. Their reasoning? More often than not, they claim it is because of the pristine and wildlife-filled lands of ANWR. That leads into our second lesson.[24]

In 1980 and 1983 additional acreage was added to bring the current size to 19.6 million acres. Despite its name, ANWR is not entirely "refuge." It is divided into three parts: the southern 9.16 million acres officially is classified as "refuge;" the central 8 million acres is classified as "wilderness;" and the northernmost 1.5 million acres is "10-02." The 10-02 area takes its name from the section of the congressional bill that expanded ANWR in 1980 and set aside 1.5 million acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain specifically for "oil and gas exploration." This area is classified neither as refuge nor wilderness. It is defined and separated by Congress for oil and gas exploration because of the well-known geological evidence of potentially large hydrocarbon deposits. It is completely flat and barren with no trees, hills or mountains.[25] There have been many references in the news to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and whether oil and natural gas exploration should take place in this area. I was curious about this area and why Congress has failed to approve its exploration.[25] Drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and areas of the outer continental shelf, currently off-limits, would not reduce our reliance on imported oil nor lower gas prices, as I explained last week. These should be sufficient reasons for rational folks to conclude that drilling for oil in these areas is a bad idea.[26] U.S. HOUSE: Visitors said trip bolstered their pro-drilling stance. The rhetoric over drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is heating up as gas prices rise, with pro-drilling members of Congress and congressional hopefuls making visits to the refuge to hammer home their point.[17]

The decision will open up for drilling much of the northeast section of the Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, holding an estimated 3.7 billion barrels of oil, with production expected to begin in 2010. Congressional Democrats are not opposed to this move, which leaves the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge untouched for now.[22] House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is looking to divert the bill by looking at speeding up development of existing leases or offering leases in areas that are not currently off-limit to drilling. These areas are mainly in Alaska, but not including the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) with known probable reserves of 11 billion barrels and the oil infrastructure (Alaska oil pipeline) already in place to move the oil to market.[27] The statute creating ANWR contemplated future oil production on the coastal plain, subject to congressional approval. Another wildlife refuge in Alaska, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, has had drilling onsite for decades.[28]

Senate Republicans are dropping the oil drilling issue in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge this year.[29] Officials within the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Agency estimate that oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge wouldn't hit the market for several years and would only reduce gas by a few pennies.[30] Alaskan state officials said that as much as 260,000 gallons of crude oil leaked out of a pipeline in an oil field operated by BP and jointly owned by Exxon Mobil, and ConocoPhillips and blanketed two acres of frozen tundra near Prudhoe Bay - just 60 miles from where President George W. Bush has proposed opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to exploration. The spill went undetected for about five days before a BP oilfield worker detected the scent of hydrocarbons during a drive through the area that led him to believe there was a spill from one of the companies' facilities.[19]

Sentiment continues to grow in favor of the federal government opening oil reserves, drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and, most recently, repealing federal legislation to allow offshore drilling.[23] Party leaders say no to drilling anywhere, no to nuclear plants, no to oil refineries, no to drilling 50 miles off Florida's coast and no to environmentally sound drilling under the barren tundra of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[31]

Take the tiny sliver of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge proposed for energy development, where 10 billion barrels of oil await. It's an icy coastal plain, said Williams. "It's still pretty, and people have homes here, but it's not what you see on TV," he said.[3] Fourth District U.S. Congressman Jim Jordan is heading north to Alaska to see America's oil pipeline and to check out the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[32] The reason the pipeline is in a state of decline is not due to a lack of adequate supply. It is a combination of lawsuits, time-consuming permitting processes, and the Democratic Congress' refusal to lead that has slowed the flow of supply out of the North Slope. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's (ANWR) "10-02 Area."[24] The term ANWR, the abbreviation for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, has been thrust into the lexicon of daily American use in light of increased global energy demands and soaring energy costs at home. ANWR has become the Maginot Line for environmentalists and their Congressional supporters.[33] Wealthy speculators are driving up gas prices and fueling calls for harmful new drilling off our coasts and in pristine places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It's a classic match-up: Wall Street fat cats versus American families and the natural treasures we leave to our children.[30] The Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) holds too little oil to reduce gas prices more than a few cents per gallon, and new sources of oil could take decades to develop, according to government analysts.[21]

In 1980 a Democrat controlled Congress, at the behest of President Jimmy Carter, set area 1002 aside for possible energy exploration. Although there are active oil and gas wells in at least 36 U.S. wildlife refuges, we have been prevented from using this domestic source of oil.[28] The congressional definitions of refuge and wilderness, which comprises more than 92 percent of the ANWR area, forbids development of any kind. Despite its specific oil and gas definition, exploration of the 10-02 area cannot take place without congressional approval. Alaska's Gov. Sara Palin has talked about the importance of this area to help alleviate the energy crisis. She estimated more than $200 billion in federal taxes would be raised, which could be used to fund alternative energies.[25] Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin told IBD oil from the Chukchi Sea, believed to hold 15 billion barrels of oil, could flow much sooner than 10 years with new legislation. "Those areas Congress can help us with right now," she said. Congress' delays have become an issue in this year's campaigns. "Those are problems that can be solved with legislation," said Craig Williams, a Republican congressional candidate from Pennsylvania, who traveled to the North Slope of Alaska last week and spoke to IBD by phone. He said streamlining the environmental impact process and tightening the four- to six-year schedule for bidding would make a big difference.[34] The federal Mineral Management Service notes also that about four-fifths of nearly 90 billion barrels of recoverable oil offshore already are available for drilling ' most of that oil is in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. Earlier this month, President Bush repealed an offshore drilling moratorium, the same one his father signed in 1990. Congressional bans on offshore drilling were enacted in 1981, and Bush is urging Congress to lift them as well.[23] President Bush made a big deal of lifting the executive ban on offshore drilling ''' a ban his father put in place, by the way ''' saying it must be done to help reduce oil prices and America's dependence on foreign oil (" Bush lifts ban on oil drilling, challenges Dems in Congress," News, Tuesday). Offshore drilling wouldn't do any such thing.[2] As it stands, 97% of our offshore areas and 94% of our federal lands are off limits. President Bush raised the likelihood that that could change with his lifting of the federal moratorium on offshore drilling. He's been opposed by Congress, which argues it will simply take too long - as much as 10 years or more - for the new oil to come to market to do any good. That doesn't appear to be true.[34]

President Bush recently lifted a presidential ban on offshore drilling, but Congress would need to do the same to give oil companies access to regions off-limits since 1981.[1] At worst, it is drawing support from various circles, including Congress, as lawmakers react to the growing public alarm over energy costs. This is a time for responsible leadership, and Congress must rise to the occasion. It's one thing for Mr. Bush to seize an opportunity to open more acreage to the oil companies. He's been pro-exploration from the moment he entered the Oval Office. It's quite another for responsible members of Congress to start wavering on the issue of offshore drilling out of fear of voter backlash at home. They need to stand firm.[35]

"In view of the presidential election, I've predicted all along that if we get an ANWR vote, it will be after the election," Republican Sen. Ted Stevens said Thursday in Washington, D.C. Republican Gov. Sarah Palin said she was not giving up hope that McCain, if elected, might end up reversing his position and support oil drilling in ANWR. Palin said she's encouraged that McCain changed his position to support offshore drilling. The state-funded pro-drilling lobbying group Arctic Power helped organize the congressional hopefuls' visit to ANWR. But the candidates paid their way.[17] The Republican candidates, from Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, South Dakota, Indiana and Utah, were already in favor of drilling in ANWR. They said they wanted to see for themselves why Alaska's vast oil and gas resources are being denied to the rest of the country. The politicians said the trip confirmed their belief that Congress has dropped the ball on energy policy.[15] "The Bush administration is claiming the ANWR drilling plan will lower the prices of gas. It has nothing to do with it," Daughenbaugh said. "It will be 10 years before we get oil, and the amount of oil is not sufficiently significant to make a noticeable impact on gas prices. The Bush administration is pulling the wool over the eyes of Congress for their greed in favor of oil development."[10]

The bill calls for the opening of the 10-02 Area of ANWR to responsible oil and gas development, and requires that funds generated from oil production taxes be used to set up an Alternative Energy Trust Fund, promoting the development and production of alternative energies. Bartlett, with a history opposing ANWR, recently held a conference on Capitol Hill announcing his change of heart, conceding the enormous economic benefit of ANWR oil development at a time when the nation is being hit with record high prices from OPEC. Rep. James Walsh (R-NY), also a long-standing opponent of ANWR legislation, announced his change of opinion, saying, '''I've always taken the position that we should retain that oil in reserve. As long as it's in the ground we can use it in the event of an emergency, and I think what is happening today constitutes an energy emergency.[10] In May, the U.S. Department of Energy reported that 'ANWR oil production is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices' and opening it up would reduce oil prices 41 to 75 cents per barrel.[12] Energy experts believe the extraction of ANWR's likely 11 billion barrels of oil would send a signal of increased U.S. interest in domestic energy production.[16]

Under Mr. Bush's plan, oil companies would be able to drill for an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil pinpointed in areas now off limits to drilling. Even if such a rich source materialized and were tapped, there is no guarantee the oil would flow to the U.S. market. It would become part of the global oil supply and subject to the price fluctuations of global demand.[35] By lifting the drilling ban -- the White House estimates there are billions of barrels of oil untapped off U.S. coastlines -- our country would move closer to becoming energy independent and free of all of the entanglements that come with importing foreign oil from sometimes hostile places. It's true, as some environmentalists like to say, that the U.S. can't drill its way out of its energy doldrums. It must be part of a broader package.[8]

Senator John McCain and President Bush are planning to keep on drilling. On June 17, the same day his campaign premiered a TV ad on which he boasted to have stood up to the White House’s global warming policy, Sen. McCain changed course by announcing his plan, which was supported by President Bush, to open up the rest of the country’s coasts to oil drilling. This, he said, “would be very helpful in the short term in resolving our energy crisis. Two weeks earlier, on May 29, the same Sen. McCain reiterated his opposition to opening up the country’s coasts to oil exploration by saying that the necessary infrastructure would take “years to develop” and that “it would only postpone or temporarily relieve our dependency on fossil fuels. Which McCain is right, the June 17 one or the May 29 one? Are you and the rest of consumers going to benefit from drilling our shores and our dearest and most pristine places? Let’s put all this crude rhetoric through the truth refinery.[11] The environmental movement calls on Senator McCain to support the Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008, which would repeal subsidies from Big Oil and increase funding for renewables, efficiency and conservation, and also to stop, along with President Bush, drilling us all deeper into this hole.[11]

It may have been only a symbolic move, but when President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling, he once again brought attention of America's energy woes.[36] Two bipartisan groups in Congress are trying to expand domestic oil and gas drilling. President Bush lifted an executive order banning offshore oil drilling and asked Congress to follow his lead.[6]

Following President Bush lifting of his father's off-shore drilling moratorium July 14, the future of such oil production lies in the hands of a divided Congress.[12]

Just a little talk from President Bush last week about pushing for more oil supplies helped push oil prices down more than 10% to below $130 a barrel in just five days, even though a drilling ban remains in place.[34] Even before a barrel of crude is pumped we will see dramatic reductions in oil costs. When President Bush announced that he was rescinding the executive order banning off-shore drilling, a pretty much meaningless gesture, oil prices dropped $15 per barrel overnight! Such is the nature of commodities markets.[37]

In the long run, it likely would not significantly impact oil or gasoline prices. The Energy Information Administration this year said that oil from the refuge would have only a slight impact on global oil prices, reducing them to $1.44 per barrel in 2027 in the best-case scenario. Assuming Congress approved its opening, it would take about a decade before the refuge could start producing.[16] Opening the refuge to drilling "is not projected to have a large impact on world oil prices" or the price of gasoline, said Budzik of the Energy Information Administration (EIA). Tapping the refuge could cut the cost of a barrel of oil by perhaps 2 percent and shave 1 cent to 3 cents off the pump price of a gallon of gas, he said.[21]

People in the area desperately need jobs, and polls consistently show 75% approval for more drilling, Crockett said. "They're in a financial crisis," Williams said, noting that local leaders told him "they pay $9 a gallon for gas and more than $50 (a quart) for motor oil. These are hunting villages that depend on boats and vehicles. They live in homes the size of trailers, but they cost $300,000 to build because of the cost of moving building materials up here." Contrary to environmentalist propaganda, people in Prudhoe Bay "care about what they do to the land," he said. "These Alaskans aren't robber barons. They go to painstaking lengths to not destroy the environment and to restore it to its original condition, it's part of the culture here." He said the oil industry has that ethos, too. Prudhoe, where 400,000 barrels of oil a day is now being produced, wasn't the sea of rigs he expected.[3]

Based on the facts and the need for additional domestic oil and natural gas, I am more puzzled than ever why Congress has not acted to open up the region for oil and gas production years ago. I would suggest we all write to our senators and representatives and encourage them to vote for exploration not only in 10-02 area but in other promising areas, as well.[25] Bush's directive expanded a moratorium Congress imposed in 1982 that removed 736,000 acres off the coast of northern and central California from leasing for oil and gas exploration and production. There was concern about possible environmental damage and social disruption caused by routine activities and accidents, such as oil spills.[12]

Our visit to Alaska's north slope, on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, was symbolic of America's vast, existing energy resources. Those resources can be found in the coal mines of West Virginia, the natural-gas deposits far off our shores, and in the oil-rich Mountain West, Arctic coastal plain, and Outer Continental Shelf. Some of those resources we utilize today ' particularly American coal. Some of them, such as the tremendous amounts of American oil and gas, remain locked away by decades of policy crafted by those who have done the bidding of the radical environmental community ' and those, namely the Democrats in charge of Congress, who continue to worship at that same altar of radical environmentalism today.[24] Profits from drilling in Alaska's North Slope have declined over the past seven years as the volume of oil extracted from the North Slope fell from 800,000 barrels in 1980 to half that amount, which is part of the reason BP and other companies have been so eager to drill in ANWR.[19] The Interior Department finally announced that some of Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve would be open to drilling bids by the end of the year. Batting mosquitoes on the North Slope, Williams says his trip has been worth it, dispelling many myths about Alaska's oil riches.[3]

The Alaskan National Wildlife Reserve is home to trillions of barrels of oil, yet environmental groups and Congress continue to oppose drilling there.[38] The IER notes, for instance, that 100% of New Mexico's 78 oil leases were protested by environmental and neighborhood groups. The group also noted that a critical pipeline from the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska has been held up by lawsuits - even as Congress blames oil companies for not producing oil from its leases there. "When the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built, lawmakers wrote into the Act that construction couldn't be stopped by pending litigation," he noted.[34]

Consider the changed attitude of Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican with a reputation for supporting environmental causes. This spring he reversed himself and now supports opening ANWR to oil development. "I have resisted drilling in ANWR because I believe that these oil reserves are like money in the bank that is yielding huge interest rates," the Maryland congressman said in a news release.[20] Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, opposes drilling in ANWR but favors doing so in offshore areas and opening new lands to oil shale mining. Both favor more stringent fuel efficiency standards. Coleman says he'd consider lower speed limits while Franken opposes it.[21] Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., joined Kline and Bachmann in supporting a measure allowing drilling in ANWR on condition that some of the revenue from the new oil leases be invested in alternative energy. Generally, however, Democrats are more inclined to emphasize conservation over drilling in restricted areas and argue that oil companies have failed to drill where it's already permitted.[21]

Smith said allowing offshore oil exploration and drilling in ANWR could help meet the nation's needs while alternative energy sources, like cellulosic ethanol, are developed.[9] The move is unlikely. More than risking any environmental catastrophes or destroying critical natural habitats, attempting to open additional offshore drilling fields is a great way not to come up with a long-term solution to our energy needs and, if you buy the argument that it is, then it's a great way to win the votes of an uninformed, politically blinded or desperate American people. It's important to note that before the issue became partisan, election-year politics when Sen. John McCain flipped on the issue to garner votes this summer, legislators and governors in most coastal states that would be affected took tough stands against offshore drilling. They still do ' Florida's former Gov. Jeb Bush, a Republican, S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford, a Republican, North Carolina's Gov. Mike Easley, a Democrat, and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.[23] Twenty-three congressional members formed the House Bipartisan Energy Working Group, which plans to introduce consensus energy legislation before the August recess. Congressman Ted Poe, R-Texas, introduced the American Energy Independence through Offshore Drilling Act to terminate the current moratorium and to allow individual states the option of drilling off their shores while sharing revenues generated by the expanded exploration. That bill, Drill Now, has remained in committee since July 2.[12] Offshore drilling proposals are more contentious. These Democrats, usually from more conservative states, have discussed a compromise in which revenue from leasing new drilling sites would fund tax breaks for renewable energy.[22]

The group also included Paul Stark of Eau Claire, Wis., Chris Lien of Rapid City, S.D., Jason Chaffetz of Alpine, Utah, and Indiana candidates Mike Sodrel of New Albany, Luke Puckett of Goshen, and Greg Goode of Terre Haute. The idea of drilling in the refuge is popular in Alaska, where roughly 85 percent of the state's general fund comes from oil royalties, and hearty support comes from both sides of the aisle.[16] The result has been largely in line with how Americans have felt. At the start of this decade, more than two-thirds of Americans routinely told pollsters the environment should win priority over the economy. Now, even after Al Gore shared a Nobel Prize for his telling of "An Inconvenient Truth," just half rank green over greenbacks. A Gallup Poll in May found that 57 percent of Americans favor "drilling in U.S. coastal and wilderness areas," although it didn't specifically ask about ANWR. (Alaskans, who see an immediate payoff to their economy from drilling in taxes and jobs, overwhelmingly support tapping into the refuge.) Polls by the Pew Center found sizable national shifts on the specific issue of Arctic refuge drilling just this year.[20] The push for more drilling has intensified in an election year amid evidence that more Americans support the idea. A Pew Research Center poll released this month showed that 47 percent now rate energy exploration as a more important priority than conservation, up from 35 percent in February.[21] Some 47 percent of Americans now rate energy exploration, drilling and building new power plants as the nation's top priority, compared with 35 percent just four months ago, according to a recent poll by the Pew Research Center. We share many of the ecological concerns of those against lifting the ban, including environmentalists, fishermen and the tourism industry.[8]

"We need an energy plan now and although ANWR won't be the solution, it should be a component of that plan." The candidates, from Indiana, Utah, Wisconsin, South Dakota and Pennsylvania, told reporters they were convinced that drilling could go forward in an environmentally safe manner and would barely make a dent on the vast Arctic tundra. Outside, a group of about 30 environmentalists, Alaska Natives and others protested against drilling, which they said would ruin a key habitat for caribou, polar bears, whales and other wildlife. "We just wanted to show that not all Alaskans believe this push for drilling is the solution," said Rebecca Noblin, an Anchorage-based attorney for Pacific Environment. [16] There are an estimated 10 billion barrels of domestic oil waiting to be harvested in ANWR. ANWR comprises 19 million acres in Northeast Alaska, 17.5 million of which are totally off-limits to drilling or any other kind of economic activity.[28] The section of ANWR known as Area 10-02 is about 1.2 million acres in size and includes a sliver of about 2,000 acres identified for oil extraction. "It is the equivalent," said Craig Williams, "of a postage stamp on a football field." Williams graduated from high school in Alaska and has family that lives in the state, but he now lives in Pennsylvania.[33]

It'''s 19.6 million acres.'' There's not a single tree in that entire area, not for 700 miles from where they want to drill for oil.'' This is a carbon copy of the ecosystem that we drilled in the north slope of Alaska in the early seventies.''' For many the question is, '''Should we utilize the resources in places like ANWR, or leave them to the sparse population of wildlife in the area.'''[10]

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin (R) recently submitted a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) on the importance of ANWR in dealing with the energy crisis. Palin, like many Alaskan governors before her, is extremely passionate in vocalizing her belief that ANWR is an essential resource for oil and gas development, particularly a small region known as the 10-02 area.[10]

Sen. Reid, a staunch foe of increased production at ANWR, along with Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Senator John Kerry (D-MA), have all worked hard to nix Alaskan'''s efforts to tap oil reserves in the 10-02 area. Their arguments against increased oil development reference Sierra Club rhetoric on environmental issues and economic statistical analysis, despite the fact that Reid'''s own state of Nevada is totally reliant on outside sources for all its transportation fuel.[10] Governor Palin argues that increasing oil production at ANWR will benefit the nation with long-term jobs in all 50 states for services, infrastructure construction, and maintenance.[10]

As measured by the public outcry, political opposition to domestic oil production has become increasingly untenable. The absurdity of efforts to prevent drilling in the U.S. is highlighted by a House bill passed in May that would have the Justice Department sue OPEC nations for not producing more oil to meet U.S. needs. ANWR opponents believe other countries have an obligation to do exactly what they oppose the U.S. could be doing at home.[33] The term will be marked by debates over nuclear, coal, natural-gas and solar power, offshore oil drilling, increasing fuel use from China, and the fact that some people don't think global oil production can meet demand.[1] In the mean time, we are going to continue to be dependent on fossil fuels to power our economy. This plan provides the energy needed now by our current fossil fuel based infrastructure while taking 'profits' from oil production to fund development of new clean energy sources.[27] The bill calls for the opening of the 10-02 area to responsible oil and gas development and using the funds generated from oil production taxes to set up an Alternative Energy Trust Fund.[25] According to Palin, the federal taxes from oil production, generating $200 billion, would be used to fund alternative energies and future energy development for the next three decades.[10] In addition to Kenai, Prudhoe Bay, only 55 miles west of ANWR, has produced more than 10 billion barrels of oil since the 1970s. Decades of studies show this oil production has affected the environment negligibly.[28] Flowing at one million barrels a day -- equal to 20 percent of today's domestic oil production -- ANWR oil would almost equal America's daily imports from Saudi Arabia.[28]

Oil worth at least $1 trillion likely sits below the refuge. It could add 27 million gallons of gasoline and diesel to the daily U.S. supply, or an increase of 20 percent of domestic production.[20]

I support domestic drilling as part of our energy solution, but we've got to be smart about it. The oil companies should start by using the 68 million acres of federal land they already have under lease before asking us for more. It appears to be the greed of big oil companies and the political calculations of some politicians that are driving these proposals, not the best interests of families and small businesses. [4] Drilling alone will not solve our problem. The reason is simple: there is a finite amount of oil and ever-increasing competition with other countries for these resources. Without also addressing and significantly reducing our demand for oil, we will be back in this same situation down the road, but without any oil reserves of our own to fall back on. Looking toward the long term, we need to take this crisis and turn it into an opportunity to reduce our dependence on oil foreign and domestic. That means getting smart about our consumption and increasing efficiency in our automobiles, homes and businesses. It also means taking the billions of our tax dollars that are currently being given away to oil companies, who are already making record profits, and investing them in the research and development of alternative energy sources instead. I wish I had more space to go into these ideas in-depth here because they are a critical part of the discussion.[4] When the oil companies start drilling and wells start producing, the oil companies will own the oil, which will then be sold on an open market to the highest bidder. This is a last-ditch effort by an oilman who happens to be the lame-duck president to help his cohorts in the oil business make billions more in profits by lying to us about the benefits of increased drilling in these protected areas.[6]

Some of the lobbying appears to have paid off. "With a drilling footprint that covers just a tiny fraction of this vast terrain, America could produce an estimated 10 billion barrels of oil," President Bush said in a weekly radio address June 21.[19] California's 10 billion barrels in offshore oil could be brought to market in as little as a year "if the moratorium were lifted," according to a recent Sanford C. Bernstein report said, citing that the oil is under shallow water and drilling platforms already exist.[34] There is an estimated 5.7 billion barrels of oil offshore California. Some of this oil could be developed quickly as fields with known reserves lie very close to existing drilling platforms.[27]

There was a large oil spill off Santa Barbara in 1969 caused by a blowout of a well. 80,000 barrels of oil were released into the ocean. This resulted in new regulations requiring safety devices to prevent blowouts and oil spills in offshore drilling.[27] Allowing offshore drilling isn't going to ease oil prices anytime soon because it takes three to five years to develop offshore fields.[36] If America was not straddled with the humongous national debt from the Iraq invasion and continuous tax cuts for the wealthy, our dollar would be stronger and the rapid rise in oil prices would not be making people quit jobs with long commutes or struggle with massive heating bills. One day our nation, not the oil companies, may require that we begin to open these regions to drilling.[18]

Please take a stand against irresponsible policies that hurt our families and put our wildlife at risk. More drilling may benefit wealthy investors, Big Oil companies and their allies in Congress, but it won't lower prices at the pump or end America's oil addiction.[30] Ask your Senators and Representative to pass legislation to address high gas prices and protect our polar bears and other wildlife from the oil speculators and Big Oil's disastrous drilling plans.[30] Urge Congress to pass legislation to address high gas prices by restoring accountability and transparency in the oil markets.[30]

With gas prices hovering in the stratosphere -- around $4 a gallon in Colorado -- now is the time for Congress to act. Americans have begun to change their tune about drilling.[8]

Offshore drilling will be a major issue in the upcoming election. Every day people are reminded of our dependence on foreign oil every time they pass a gas station or need to fill up their own car.[27] Since that time, the industry record on oil spills from offshore drilling has been excellent.[27]

We seem to believe that there are no more drilling fields in the U.S., that we must open offshore drilling or go without. It may be surprising to learn that more than 65 percent of the 36 million barrels believed to lie under federal land ' that is, open for drilling ' are accessible, according to a June report in the New York Times.[23] It's time for the U.S. to end its long-standing ban on offshore drilling. President Bush last week overturned an executive ban on such drilling first enacted by his father in 1990. Now, the Democrat-controlled Congress should do the same with its ban imposed a decade before.[8] "I came up here a supporter but I am now even more enthusiastic," said Greg Goode, who is running for a U.S. House seat in Indiana. Mentioned is the irony that both presidential candidates this year aren't very keen on drilling in ANWR, though John McCain has warmed to offshore drilling. Alaska Governor Sarah Palin says she remains hopeful that if McCain is elected president, he may yet come around to drilling in ANWR.[37] A group of House Republicans led by minority leader Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, are headed to Alaska this weekend for a tour of ANWR. Seven Republican U.S. House candidates from around the country also flew to the refuge this week and told reporters in Anchorage Thursday that it strengthened their pro-drilling stance. The reality is that anti-ANWR-drilling Democrats control Congress and both of the major presidential candidates, Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, are opposed to drilling in the refuge.[17] A bill moving through the U.S. House would again try to open the refuge to drilling and direct money generated by the leases to fund alternative energy projects. "It's still a long road," said Steve Hansen, a GOP spokesman on the House Natural Resources Committee, where Rep. Don Young of Alaska has long pushed for drilling. "But right now the chances for opening ANWR for drilling are better than they have been for years."[20]

A candidate for Pennsylvania's 7th Congressional District, Williams and six other U.S. House candidates traveled to ANWR and the neighboring region on July 15-16 to get a first-hand look at the subject of so much controversy. Area 10-02 got its name from section 1002 of the "Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act," legislation passed and signed into law in December 1980 by a lame duck Congress and President Jimmy Carter, following the landslide victory by Ronald Reagan.[33] THE CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES also visited Prudhoe Bay, approximately 75 miles to the west of Area 10-02 and the site of the existing Alaska oil pipeline that would be used to carry ANWR oil.[33]

Five of the seven are challenging incumbent members of Congress who vehemently oppose developing oil excavation in Area 10-02. Chaffetz is running for a vacant seat after defeating incumbent Chris Cannon in the Republican primary and Puckett's opponent, Rep. Joe Donnelly, recently abandoned his opposition to ANWR drilling.[33] According to Herrera, ANWR opponents show photographs of the Brooks Mountains located about 45 miles to the south of the area identified for oil drilling in an apparent attempt to misrepresent the true geographic nature of the area.[33]

We have two very different opinions on how to face our energy needs. Sen. Barack Obama wants to keep the ban in place. Sen. John McCain says he now supports offshore oil drilling. He has reversed his stance on the issue recently. We hope McCain sticks with this theme as we go forward in the campaign and hope Obama could see fit to ease his stance on this critically important issue.[36] We still have huge reserves of oil in and just offshore of the United States. To think that these reserves won't eventually be exploited is a pipe dream and we need to explore all energy opportunities as we head forward. This in no way dissolves the progress we need in alternative energy projects, but we have to bridge that gap without wrecking the nation's economy and bankrupting a generation of citizens in the process.[36] Oil is critical to the U.S. economy. Herrera, of the pro-drilling Arctic Power group, said the country's real need for energy must be balanced against what he sees as a slight impact on the environment. "You can go farther west on the northern slope of Alaska and find a giant caribou herd that is untouched," he said.[20]

"With oil at $134 per barrel, there is obviously no surplus energy or capital to invest in alternatives." He conceded some harm to the coastal strip of northern Alaska, but said, "I am convinced that the environmental impact will be minimal."[20] According to Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management, who testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in June, "with greater regulation, oil prices could drop to $65 or $70 a barrel within about 30 days."[30] U.S. Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert Kimmitt was quoted recently by Dow Jones Newswires as saying: "We just don't see speculation having a major impact." Others in the industry see speculation by pension funds and other institutions as influencing as much as 30 percent of current oil prices.[21]

New technology in recent years makes it easier to drill in an environmentally sensitive manner without damaging coastline reefs. It's also important to note that the U.S. Minerals Management Service, a branch of the Interior Department, conducts environmental impact studies -- whether companies are drilling in the ocean or in Colorado's oil shale region.[8] To begin with, industry analysts note, much of the drilling delay is self-inflicted - a result of excessively stringent environmental and land-use regulations. Scrap those, or modify them, and new oil can be produced in far less than 10 years.[34]

Bachmann contends that enacting a comprehensive drilling plan would immediately drive down prices because oil futures traders would anticipate greater supplies in later years. Others doubt this because futures contracts will expire before the new oil becomes available.[21] Most of the time lag is due to regulatory delay. It is estimated that even offering new leases would take the government 4 years. Why is California against drilling? Many claim the risk of oil spills might pollute their beaches and ruin their tourist business.[27] The ban was originally spurred by a 1969 oil spill off the coast of Santa Barbara, Calif. McCain supports removing the ban; Obama is opposed. Opponents say drilling is not worth the environmental risk and that it's likely the oil would simply sell at the global market price at the time.[1] Critics say drilling is not worth the risk of disrupting the area's rich ecological diversity and caribou herds that sustain natives. Heller said he supports ANWR drilling and wants to learn more about how it could be conducted. "The key for me is ANWR. It is about four times the size of Clark County, and they are trying to drill in something the size of McCarran" airport. "I want to see the facts," he said. "I support more resources, more drilling offshore or in ANWR. Those are critical steps but not the only ones."[13] Based on raw facts and data, I contend that drilling in ANWR would be of immediate benefit to the people of the United States and will not leave any lasting effects on the major, or minor, wildlife in the region. One fact that I found surprising when I first started researching this issue was that more than 75 percent of Alaskans support opening up ANWR for exploration. That percentage even includes the native Inupiats who live on ANWR land! I was recently in Newark, N.J., at the airport waiting on a flight when I struck up a conversation with an Alaskan. She told me she was for the exploration of ANWR because they pay close to $6 a gallon for gas. Another facet to this issue is whether wildlife will be adversely affected. It most certainly will not, I assert.[38] The most recent attempt to authorize drilling in ANWR -- successfully filibustered by Senate Democrats in 2005 -- limited the surface disturbance to 2,000 acres, a very small portion of a very big coastal plain in a very big wildlife refuge in the biggest state in the Union.[28] After that comes bidding. MMS manages the 574 million acres of offshore federal holdings, and the Bureau of Land Management directs those for federal land, such as the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[34] The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is a 19 million acre expanse of wilderness. Oil would be drilled on only 2,000 of those acres.[32]

There is also said to be 10 billion to 12 billion of untapped oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[36] LOUISVILLE, KY (WAVE) - Mike Sodrel, candidate for Indiana's 9th congressional district seat, just returned from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, more commonly known as ANWR, and says we should drill.[39] The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is an iconic gesture of hope. It is the hope of all those who worked for its protection over the last century, and a hope that comes "from the eyes of the future looking back," praying that we act with restraint in the trying days that have come with this century. As a nation, we are neither so poor that we need to sacrifice such a treasure, nor so rich that we can afford to do so. While a lone man in Washington and his party leaders may clamor for its exploitation, the mighty migration of the 100,000-strong porcupine caribou herd has made its way to its summering grounds on the coastal plain, the biological heart of the refuge. In this migration of millennia, there is solace, and a stunning rebuke to those who would extinguish such an enduring majesty.[5]

The state-funded lobbying group, Arctic Power, set up in 1992 to push for drilling in ANWR, handled travel arrangements and other logistics for the "Congressional Challengers Tour." Candidates said they paid all expenses themselves during the three-day trip to the refuge and the Inupiat Eskimo communities of Barrow and Kaktovik, 600 miles north of Anchorage.[16] DFLer Elwyn Tinklenberg, who is challenging Bachmann for the Sixth Congressional District seat, opposes drilling in ANWR but favors offshore and oil shale development. He opposes a lower speed limit but favors raising fuel efficiency requirements.[21] Election: There's little doubt voters want more drilling if even congressional candidates are starting to trek to Alaska to urge more oil development.[3] Republican congressional candidates staged a fact-finding trip to Alaska last week to showcase the possibility of an untapped domestic oil bounty.[20] Congressional challenger Craig Williams of Pennsylvania spoke to us Wednesday by phone from Deadhorse, Alaska. He and six other Republican candidates think there's enough voter disapproval with Congress' failure to do anything about gas prices to win this election, even in a season when Democrats are believed to have the advantage.[3] The congressional hopefuls think getting word out about Alaska is a way to highlight that as gas prices soar, a new congressman might make a difference.[3]

Producing oil from new sources has three stages, which can take years, notes Marilyn Crockett, executive director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association in Anchorage.[34] And perhaps most strikingly, we learned that the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline, which carries petroleum from Prudhoe Bay on the North Slope 800 miles south to Valdez, on the Gulf of Alaska, is in a state of decline. Officials in Alaska warned us that in ten years, if the pipeline continues its current rate of decline in transporting oil supplies, the pipeline will be processing less than 300,000 barrels of oil per day, compared to nearly 720,000 today.[24] Last November, the oil company British Petroleum (BP) plead guilty to a misdemeanor and paid a $20 million fine for violating the Clean Water Act related to a massive oil spill that occurred at BP's Prudhoe Bay operations in Alaska's North Slope two years earlier.[19]

Experts agree that at that level ' without adding new supplies of oil ' the pipeline could not continue to operate, shutting down all production in the North Slope and turning a multi-billion dollar asset into scrap metal. It's a "pipeline deadline," if you will. [24] Increased American energy production throughout all of the North Slope ' not to mention the Outer Continental Shelf and other remote government-owned lands across the country ' is part of a bridge to America's energy future. While scientists and engineers perfect emerging technologies such as those at NREL, more of our nation's vast energy reserves must be explored in a respectful and responsible way to help bring down fuel costs.[24] The new technologies energy companies use to reduce the "footprint" on the environment is equally impressive. Those on the Left who cite these companies' "insensitivity" as a reason for stonewalling more production in the region either suffer from a complete misunderstanding of the issue or are purposely twisting the facts. Either way, it's the American people ' not to mention North Slope residents who depend upon energy production for jobs ' who suffer the consequences.[24]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) and her liberal colleagues in the Democratic leadership are under immense pressure from the American public and from an increasing number of rank-and-file Democrats to stop fiddling and schedule a real vote on more American energy production. What is her response? The Speaker told CNN last week that "I have no plans to do so." House Republicans will continue this fight every single day, but let's be clear: Only Speaker Pelosi and her liberal Democratic colleagues are standing in the way of lower gasoline prices for the American people.[24] S ome 250 miles north of the Arctic Circle Sunday, ten of my House Republican colleagues and I completed an American energy tour focused on real solutions to help lower gasoline prices and energy costs for families and small businesses.[24]

"Public outrage over energy prices before an election can be a powerful thing," said Roger Herrera, a spokesman for the pro-drilling group Arctic Power. "It can move some politicians." Defenders of the refuge they object to the common ANWR acronym as a denuding device concede that the coastal plain may not be as photogenic as other parts of Alaska. They say, it is a critical part of the larger ecosystem.[14] The area called 10-02 is named after section 10-20 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), a congressional bill that expanded ANWR in 1980. 10-02 occupies 2000 acres, or roughly 3 square miles, of ANWR, and is legally classified as neither refuge nor wilderness.[10] The area proposed for drilling in ANWR is smaller than maps suggest. "They only need five-acre pads in 10-02," Williams said, using a common name for ANWR. "When you see a map of Alaska with a little red dot of proposed drilling in ANWR, it's not even that, because the 2,000 acres (of the map) are not contiguous." When a well doesn't pan out, "we saw how they covered it up, revegetated it and you cannot tell another human being has been there," said Williams.[3] "We did not meet a single villager or local official opposed to drilling in the area," reported Stark. The Kaktovik villagers view ANWR drilling as critical to the continuation of their lifestyle. They are shareholders of 92,000 acres in ANWR, including the subterranean mineral rights. Drilling will bring in much-needed revenue to their ancestral area that is plagued by astronomical prices due to the village's remoteness.[33]

To say or suggest that "the refuge" - meaning ANWR's entire area - would be opened for oil and gas exploration is completely false. [25] Congress originally set the area aside specifically for oil and gas exploration due to overwhelming geological evidence of large hydrocarbon deposits.[10]

Half of Nevada'''s electricity comes from coal and natural gas, the lion'''s share coming from out of state. This is the tip the iceberg of controversy surrounding the argument over drilling for oil on U.S. soil.[10] The plan would also fund household conservation measures (like winterizing homes in the Northeast to reduce the amount of oil used for heating.) California is one of the states that would benefit from this bill if the state decided to allow more offshore drilling.[27] The agency has said that offshore drilling would not significantly impact domestic production or prices before 2030. This drilling would come at a terrible cost to our wildlife and the environment. Arctic drilling activities would disturb the most important onshore denning habitat for America's threatened polar bears -- potentially causing polar bear mothers to abandon their cubs. Offshore drilling has its own problems: Each platform produces toxic discharges that can poison and kill marine wildlife and dumps tons of air pollutants into our atmosphere.[30] The oil production there rarely makes the news because it has not caused any problems, even though Kenai has far more wildlife than ANWR.[28] Some oil production could be brought on-line in less than a year. Oil production requiring new leases and infrastructure could be brought on faster than the estimated 10 years if the government would speed up its part of the process.[27]

Considerable uncertainty exists regarding future ANWR oil production because of several factors, including the resource base size and quality, the agency noted.[12]

John McCain, in Kansas City, even objected to the ANWR acronym, saying that "if we found oil in the Grand Canyon, I wouldn't be in favor of drilling there. This is a refuge."[20] If gasoline were selling for $2 a gallon today, President Bush's decision to lift the ban on oil drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts most likely would have caused an uproar.[35] When you hear President Bush and other conservative-rightie politicians attempting to manipulate our country once more, we need to transform the insult, disgust, bitterness and sour feeling fueled by the depths our nation has fallen into the momentum required to travel the harder road and begin to free our nation from oil dependency.[18] President Bush asked Saudi Arabia to increase oil output, with limited results.[1]

THE ISSUE: President Bush calls for drilling on offshore sites. THE STAKES: Congress must not allow this misguided policy.[35]

With high gasoline prices jolting summer travel and the economy, many members of Congress are pushing to open up an Alaskan wildlife refuge, the nation's deep-sea reserves and oil-shale fields for exploration, drilling and mining.[21] Twenty years later in 1980, Jimmy Carter signed the Alaska Lands Act into law, expanding the refuge and meaning it would take an act of Congress to open the land to drilling.[20]

A big one, like Saudi Arabia which has spare capacity, will have more incentive to pump if it thinks it will lose markets. That's what drilling in the U.S. would do - threaten Saudi Arabia's and OPEC's market dominance, and force them to pump more. All that stands in the way is a Congress that, ironically, calls a 10-year production window too long, even as it's bankrolled by the very environmental special interests responsible the delays.[34] A separate analysis of the bill by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that if utilities could pass on the expenses, customers could see bills go up 44 percent in 2030. Both McCain and Obama support cap-and-trade programs - where a limit is set on emissions and businesses can trade permits that allow them to release those emissions - along the lines of the Lieberman-Warner bill. McCain supports giving out permits to release greenhouse gases that equal the current production from power plants and transportation fuels, and gradually reducing those allowances, forcing companies to cut back emissions or buy "offsets." Offsets mean paying for others to cut their emissions when you can't cut your own. Obama wants to auction off all the permits to emit greenhouse gases and use some of the money to fund alternative energy and help low-income families pay for weatherizing their homes or paying their energy bills.[1]

House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio, who organized the trip, said it was intended to call attention to Republicans' strategy to increase U.S. energy production coupled with conservation and development of renewable energy resources. It will be Heller's first trip to the ANWR coastal plain.[13]

Scores of U.S. House members are backing bills calling for developing ANWR and restricted areas of the Outer Continental Shelf and Western oil shale.[21] In the last 15 years, the U.S. House has passed bills 10 times that would have opened ANWR to drilling.[20]

If we had started drilling 10 years ago when the opposition protested we wouldn't have the oil for 7-10 years. we'd have that oil now, just when we need it most.[37] Even if the drilling moratorium was lifted tomorrow and the oil companies chose to drill in the remaining areas, most experts believe it would be decades before consumers could see some relief. That relief would be minimal at best about 75 cents per barrel, which is less than 4 cents per gallon at the pump and the savings aren't guaranteed to be passed along to consumers.[4] The men wanted to inspect a current oil drilling operation to see if it was the ecological disaster environmentalists claim will befall Area 10-02.[33] The plan would use revenue from oil drilling to finance renewable energy and household conservation measures. This is exactly the type of plan that should be enacted. It will take decades and cost trillions of dollars to create a clean energy infrastructure in this country.[27] Oil drilling is conducted only in the winter using ice roads in order not to disturb the tundra. They are no roads to many of the facilities during the non-winter months. According to Stark, oil workers are fined if they violate any rules that safeguard the environment or the wildlife, such as not bringing a vehicle to a complete stop and turning off the engine if caribou are present. A second violation brings immediate dismissal. Williams was similarly impressed in spite of confiding that he was a bit skeptical before he made the trip. What he witnessed was more remarkable than what he had anticipated. "These people are responsible stewards of the environment," he said.[33]

To be sure, oil won't be flowing tomorrow even if all drilling restrictions were lifted. That doesn't mean it won't impact prices.[34] All of the infrastructure to extract the oil, transport it to shore through already existing pipelines, and process the oil are in place. Horizontal drilling techniques now allow some of these reserves to be developed very quickly from existing platforms.[27] Drilling into undersea oil reserves may actually clean up oil seeps in California as extracting oil from a reservoir will decrease pressure and may stop some of the natural seepage.[27]

Leaseholders BP Oil and Conoco-Phillips are currently pumping 750,000 barrels each day (from a 1980s high of two million barrels daily) from the Prudhoe Bay fields, with a reserve estimated to have been in excess of 15 billion barrels.[33] Newer estimates put U.S. oil reserves at 350 billion barrels, and that's not counting massive shale and oil sand deposits.[34]

There is no guarantee that Americans will receive even a drop of the possible yield of 18 billion barrels of oil.[6] There are viable estimates that there are 18 billion barrels of oil offshore.[36] All of that pales in comparison to the estimated 800 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Green River Basin of Wyoming and Utah.[36]

Referring to oil shale, Bachmann wrote recently that there is "enough energy locked away in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming to offset all of our imports from Saudi Arabia."[21] We agree with Democrats that we do need to develop alternative energy initiatives, but in the short term the American economy will continue to rely largely on oil, and that means we need to increase supply here at home. This issue will certainly gain a national debate through the upcoming presidential race.[36] Our nation needs to stop looking for easy ways out, and to embrace the personal sacrifices, lifestyle changes and shift in our national conscious to achieve a united commitment to minimize the national dependency on oil and fossil fuels. That type of change will require Obama-style inspiration and commitment to finally embark on the national mission we should have started in the late 1970s.[18] Rather than making fuel from corn, and driving up the price of food, we need to be filling our cars with fuel made from corn stalks. As this national debate on energy continues, more people have begun to link energy with our national and economic security. That's an important step.[8]

If the United States was to announce a sound energy policy, oil speculators would drop the price of oil like a rock, also reducing the funding of our enemies in the Arab world. The Democrats have demonstrated time and again they will not allow a sane energy policy.[31] The widely respected Cambridge Energy Research Associates estimates speculative bidding accounts for about 20% of the price of oil.[34]

The oil companies can put it on the world market at prevailing prices, and it could just as easily end up in Chinese cars as our own. Bush's lifting of the executive order is no favor to Americans; it's a favor to the oil companies.[2] Speculation in the oil markets is a major factor in high gas prices. Here's how it works: Weak oversight and accountability in the oil market allows wealthy investors from around the world to drive up the price we pay for gas by purchasing oil that they have no intention of using.[30] "You've got a public that's much more concerned about gas prices and the financial bottom line," said Karlyn Bowman, a polling expert at the American Enterprise Institute. That has given drilling advocates hope for a similar shift on Capitol Hill.[20] Few proponents have been more vocal than Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., who says expanded drilling and mining could provide "immediate and lasting" relief and slash gas prices to $2 a gallon.[21]

In February, when gasoline prices averaged less than $3 a gallon, just 42 percent favored ANWR drilling.[20] Gasoline started setting records in mid-March, surpassing prices set in the wake of Gulf Coast hurricanes in 2005, and rising a couple of cents a day through June. It would cost Valley drivers nearly $6 million more daily to buy the same amount of fuel consumed last year, but many are cutting back. Phoenix utilities disconnected 40 percent more people from their electricity for late payments from January through May this year than the same time in 2007.[1] McCain has also been absent from the political stage when it has come to environmental issues. He has missed every vote on this subject this legislative year. On one of those occasions, he was particularly missed when he skipped a vote that would have added important clean energy incentives to an economic stimulus package, which was defeated by just one vote. Regardless of his reputation as a green legislator, Senator McCain has the lowest environmental voting record in Congress, according to the League of Conservation Voters. According to the Consumer Federation of America, this energy crisis, including Big Oil’s earnings drunkenness, has cost the country half a trillion dollars ($500,000,000,000) in the last two years.[11]

According to the Institute for Energy Research, a private think tank, citing Bureau of Land Management data, protests, appeals and lawsuits over oil development averaged 1,180 per year between 2001 and 2007, a 706% increase over 1997-2000.[34] Futures traders "do a terrible job pricing. how much is available 10 years from now," said Nate Hagens, who edits the Oil Drum, an online energy forum.[21]

Hopefully, developing offshore oil will get us the time and money to develop clean, renewable energy resources to we can leave a lot of coal, tar sands, and oil shale in the ground forever.[27] Oil won't last forever (but it will be around for a long time, yet), and supply won't increase tomorrow if Congress approves drilling.[37] Expanded oil exploration and drilling could have a big impact -- in the long run.[21] During the Clinton administration, Congress passed a bill authorizing oil exploration of the ANWR. Clinton vetoed the bill. Had he signed that bill, ANWR would be online now.[31] In some areas, the regulatory processes is largely done, so oil can come to market far sooner than 10 years - if Congress lets it.[34] In areas where the bureaucratic hurdles are over and lawsuits are absent, oil has been drilled and brought to the market in as little as one or two years.[34]

A broader question has been whether speculators are to blame for some of the rise in oil prices in the past year.[21] The big difference is that global demand is beyond American control and it is continuing to drive up oil prices.[18] Not many predicted that oil traders would drive up global demand by the equivalent of two months of global oil consumption by treating oil as a commodity, similar to the gold and silver markets. These traders are not required to have any "skin in the game," so they bet other people's money to make money off of rising oil prices.[18]

Oil prices are influenced by futures markets - where people buy and sell future supplies of oil.[34] As for the Outer Continental Shelf, the EIA said it "would not have a significant impact" on oil prices before 2030.[21]

The Governor estimates that the ANWR oil is worth 1.3 trillion dollars to the nation at today'''s prices.[10] Any oil produced, no matter how much, will not lower the price we pay at the pumps.[6] A prerequisite would require that all steps to minimize oil consumption had been implemented and our oil dependency reduced to an absolute minimum. Then these reserves would be available for America, not sold now on the open market, so that America could support a final transition to requiring no more oil then what can be produced domestically.[18] There is no easy solution for oil independence for America, like many American freedoms; it must be earned through sacrifice and a national commitment.[18] Sodrel estimates there could be at least 16-billion barrels of oil, but we must still work towards conservation. "It's about burning American oil. It's about improving our balance of trade. It's about improving our national security. It's about spending our money with other Americans," said Sodrel.[39]

Real American leadership would challenge our country to move away from oil, something everyone thought would happen after the energy crisis of the 1970s.[18] The Democratic Party is against any kind of a national energy policy that involves increasing our access to oil.[31] The move eventually would lessen America's dependence on foreign oil, and that has to be a major goal in any national energy stance.[36]

The worldwide demand for energy has squeezed oil supplies and has led to skyrocketing fuel costs.[33] In my previous article “Understanding Energy Return On Energy Investment opnbrktEROEIclsbrkt” I discussed why we should develop our cleanest, most readily available oil resources first. It does not make any economic or environmental sense to shut off development of oil resources with a high Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROEI) before developing lower EROEI sources like tar sands and oil shale.[27] The nation, and presumably the president, will have to find a way to negotiate surging energy needs, environmental concerns and soaring prices.[1] In 1990, President George H.W. Bush responded to concerns about preserving the ocean environment with a directive ordering the U.S. Department of Interior not to conduct leasing or preleasing activity other than offshore from a few states until 2000, according to the U.S. Department of Energy.[12] Based on interviews with Zachary Smith, Regent's Professor of political science and natural resources, Northern Arizona University; Michael Kuby, professor of geographical sciences, Arizona State University; Thomas Kuhn, president of the Edison Electric Institute; Joe Lucas, vice president of communications, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity; Bud Annan, former head of the U.S. Department of Energy's solar program, now a Scottsdale consultant; Saifur Rahman, director of the Center for Energy and the Global Environment at Virginia Tech and a vice president of the IEEE Power & Energy Society.[1]

Alaska eventually became the 49th and largest state in the U.S., but for years, many Americans referred to the territory as '''Seward'''s folly,''' believing Alaska was merely an icy wasteland.[10] The year was 1867 when the Lincoln administration'''s Secretary of State William Henry Seward negotiated a deal to buy Alaska from Russia for $7.2 million ($.02 an acre).[10] The Interior Department on Wednesday made 2.6 million acres of potentially oil-rich territory in northern Alaska available for energy exploration.[22] ANWR is a 19 million acre refuge that lies in the top northeast corner of Alaska.[10] ANWR is located in the northeast corner of Alaska, 1,300 miles south of the North Pole. It was originally formed in 1960 with 8.9 million acres.[25]

The area that would be explored -- not drilled -- is 1.5 million acres, or about 8 percent of ANWR's area.[38] Alaska has 141 million acres of protected lands, an area equal to the size of California and New York combined.[28]

Fortunately, the 1st District has practical and forthright representation in Carol Shea-Porter, who is insisting that oil companies start to drill in the 68 million acres already made available to increase oil supply, but remains untouched.[18] At about 19.5 million acres, ANWR is the size of the state of South Carolina.[33] The Act set aside more than 75 million acres of Alaska territory as federally protected public lands in order to prevent state and local development.[33]

Democrats "are afraid of a Republican amendment on an energy bill, and won't allow it before the election." That's why the seven candidates have taken their campaign to Alaska, the state that could easily overshadow any other as an energy producer.[3] WASHINGTON - Rep. Dean Heller will spend the weekend touring energy sites in Colorado and Alaska as part of a Republican effort to highlight the party's energy strategy.[13]

"We ought to be doing more to develop American energy," Kline said, adding that technological advances have greatly reduced environmental hazards offshore and in Alaska.[21] Polls show most Americans favoring opening federal lands and offshore areas to energy production.[34] Our delegation learned two key lessons on the Arctic shores ' two lessons that will further embolden our fight in Congress for more production of American energy.[24]

Bachmann, like Kline, sees production as the answer. She opposes both lowering the speed limit and raising fuel efficiency standards to conserve. "We can conserve and conserve and conserve, but that won't get us out of the situation we're in without expanding energy supplies," she said. Bachmann was expected to visit ANWR today to underscore her desire to drill there.[21]

"There's a public will to develop energy, so I came to ANWR to discover the truth," Williams said. For starters, he noted, the potential drilling areas aren't the idyllic tourist paradises environmentalists suggest. "That's not where any drilling is proposed," he said.[3] Williams noted that the latest technology will allow ANWR drilling to occupy a significantly smaller area of land than the 1970s technology that was used to develop Prudhoe Bay. "The footprint is tiny, truly tiny," he said. "It is pencil dot on full page of paper."[33] Caribou were abundant. We saw them running atop the permafrost in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (where Democratic leaders suddenly support drilling, by the way), roaming near the pipeline, and one even made its way onto t