On April 17 and 18, 2002, a number of Senators took to the floor of the upper chamber to decry efforts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to fossil fuel exploration and development.

Their objections voiced a common concern: ANWR wouldn’t begin to produce oil for up to ten years. Here’s what some of the Senators had to say:

• “There would be no production out of [ANWR] for at least 7 years.” -Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.)
• “Oil extracted from [ANWR] would not reach refineries for seven to ten years.” -Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA)
• “No oil will flow from ANWR…until from 7 to 10 years from now.” -Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
• “Oil exploration in ANWR will not actually start producing oil for as many as 10 years.” -Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA)
• “Even if we started drilling [in ANWR] tomorrow, the first barrel of crude oil would not make it to the market for at least 10 years.” -Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)

Ten years later, oil and gas production on federal lands is at a nine-year low ^[1], a gallon of regular unleaded gasoline costs an average $3.90 ^[2], and the president is busy blaming “speculators” for high oil prices – a scapegoat that even a former Democratic Commodity Futures Trading Commissioner rejects ^[3]. Heritage’s David Kreutzer also debunked ^[4] that argument.

The president’s continued refusal to expand domestic energy production, which would be an economic boon and raise significant federal revenue ^[5] without hiking taxes, recently made Heritage’s list of the administration’s ten worst energy policy decisions ^[6].

Meanwhile, the excuses offered in opposition to an energy policy that values domestic fossil fuel production look thinner by the day.