ANWR: GOP passing the buck?

Last week, House GOP leaders threw in the towel, agreeing to drop the Arctic oil drilling plans from the budget bill, less than one week after shrewdly attaching an Arctic drilling provision in budget bill.

On Nov. 3, the Senate voted narrowly to require the Interior Department to begin selling leases for the coastal plain of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, in Alaska. The provision was tacked on as an amendment to the budget deficit resolution, a bill not subject to filibuster.

TRENDING: Trump has a pathway to victory in appeal of Facebook ban

In "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil," Jerome Corsi and I explain why we so urgently need to drill for oil in Alaska now – as one of several suggestions to help free America from the stranglehold of nations hostile to the United States. And as I covered last May in "'Godforsaken' ANWR: To drill or not to drill?": "If you wanted a picture to go with the word 'Godforsaken' in the dictionary, ANWR would do nicely" reported the Washington Times."

ANWR is 19 million acres. The Senate legislation would only require about 7,000 acres, less than one-half of 1 percent of ANWR – an area only .004 percent (four one-thousands percent) of Alaska's total land mass.

If you think of ANWR as a football field, the drilling area is smaller than a postage stamp. The experts at the U.S. Geological Survey say there could be 10 billion barrels of oil there – about the same as 30 years of imports from Saudi Arabia.

Yet with gas prices at all-time highs only a few weeks ago, the House decision signifies a retreat from efforts to move America toward less dependence upon foreign oil.

Today, the U.S. imports approximately 60 percent of the 21 million barrels of oil we use daily. The ANWR could represent 1 million barrels a day of domestic oil production, but instead, the House is caving in to hysterical environmental concerns that are out of proportion with reality.

Environmaniacs claim ANWR is a "crown jewel," referring to the beautiful Brooks Range mountains seen in all the anti-drilling photos, yet they're actually 50-100 miles from the coastal plain. The potentially oil-rich area is just flat, treeless tundra.

Winters on the ANWR coastal plain last for nine months – there is total darkness for 58 consecutive days and temperatures drop to 70 degrees below zero. Spit, and your saliva freezes before it hits the ground. But the nasty conditions mean drilling can be done with ice airstrips, roads and ice-pad platforms.

Last week, Corsi asked:

How many working motorists forced to pay $50 to $75 to fill their gas tanks can still afford their Sierra Club memberships? When we move from 60 to 70 percent dependence on foreign oil, will working Americans still be comfortable to leave billions of barrels of unexplored oil in the ground under Alaska and offshore?

These are important questions, especially when the Senate has raised the question of confiscating oil company "windfall profits." We have argued that the oil companies need to realize that they have obligations to be socially responsible. What is the oil company plan to invest profits in refineries? We have not built a new refinery in the United States in the last 30 years.

This is a key part of the "stranglehold." Even if we drilled more oil in ANWR, we could not get more gasoline into the pump unless we expand our refining capabilities. We call here for more hearings, this time with the environmentalists ...

Jerome Corsi and I believe we are capable of exploring and producing oil in Alaska without destroying the environment. Not to drill means the liberals in Congress are moving America into more dependence upon foreign nations – a decision which risks our national security at a time when we can little afford to do so.