5 things to know about Obama's move to protect refuge from drilling

[Panich52]

...
On Monday, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said Obama had gone “completely wacko.” Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, chair of the Senate Energy committee, said the administration’s plans were a “kick to the gut” that treated Alaska as if it were a “snow globe out there” that should be left untouched.

...
IN THE NEAR TERM, NOTHING CHANGES. There is no drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge now, and it would take an act of Congress to authorize any drilling in the refuge.
...
REFUGE A DROP IN BUCKET FOR U.S. SUPPLIES. Even if the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge were opened to drilling, its known reserves are equal to about three years’ worth of U.S. oil production.
...
ALASKA’S OIL DOMINANCE WANING.
...
A PREVIEW TO 2016? President Barack Obama’s bold move to permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge – and the reaction of Republicans in Congress – almost certainly sets it up to be a campaign issue in 2016.

More complete explanations:

http://www.politicususa.com/2015/01/26/5-obamas-move-protect-refuge-drilling.html

[raven mad]

1. Sigh........... Don "the Mouth" Young...........

BP still hasn't paid in full on the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. Alaska is still a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil and Kocksuckers, Inc. I hate it, but Pres. Obama has given us another start at discouraging drilling, baby, drilling.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. There is a issue as to

Climate change effects to the Anwar. Permafrost melting is causing major shifts in the native wildlife. The Politicians sure love their bribes,and they know full well that if you drill in this area,the costs would be mind blowing just to put infrastructure in place. Nothing more than frozen peat bogs and swamps and when you mess with this stuff,just think of the Methane that will be released.