|
|||
|
|||
|
Posted by Kimberly Field May 30, 2006 |
As the push of Social Security reform hits political campaigns, along comes the debates for drilling in Alaska. Before you ask yourself if you're in the twilight zone, think about the 2006 election and the seats that are up for grabs.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is a 1.5 million-acre coastal plain that's home to caribou, polar bears, seals, whales, oxen and millions of migratory birds. Speculation has the barrel amount at 10.4 billion in the refuge. If oil is found the first lease sale would not be issued until mid 2007, followed by development within 7-10 years.
The U.S. has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, including the Arctic Refuge. So why drill in the ANWR when immediate results will not be seen until a decade from now? The political push is to have less dependency on foreign oil however, with the current rising gas and oil prices along with the 20-plus million barrels of foreign oil used daily by Americans; America is in need of an immediate pre-inflation fix.
Current Federal law prohibits oil and gas development in the Arctic Refuge unless authorized by Congress. Since the March 16, 2005 vote, language was included in the Senate Budget Resolution that would effectively open ANWR to drilling however this type of language is not included in the House-passed Budget Resolution.
In order for the opening of the Arctic to become law, the House and Senate must agree on a Budget Resolution and Reconciliation that includes language on drilling in the ANWR, have it passed in both chambers, and then signed by the President into law.