Duluth News-Tribune (Minnesota)
Commentary
Arctic oil isn't worth the cost
10/9/2005
Sam Cook

How much would you like to save on a gallon of gas? A penny?

To save that penny per gallon, would you be willing to compromise your hunting and wildlife watching opportunities? To save a cent a gallon -- not now, but by 2025 -- would you be willing to compromise one of the last truly wild places on Earth, a web of life that includes free-ranging caribou, denning polar bears and the nesting grounds of waterfowl and other birds?

That's what is at stake as Congress prepares to consider the federal budget bill, which is expected to include provisions for drilling oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

Several hunting, angling and conservation leaders from Minnesota don't think drilling in the refuge makes sense. A coalition of those leaders wrote this past week to U.S. Rep. Mark Kennedy, R-Minn., applauding his opposition to oil drilling in ANWR.

"Each year, thousands of waterfowl and migratory birds enjoyed by Minnesotans in the spring and fall, including geese, ducks, swans, cranes and loons, require the critical nesting habitat of the Arctic Refuge in order to successfully complete their life cycle," the letter stated. "This habitat is too important to waste and will not do anything to reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil."

The letter was signed by state leaders of the Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Conservation Federation, Minnesota Waterfowl Association, Trout Unlimited and other individual conservation leaders including Dave Zentner of Duluth.

In late September, former Gov. Arne Carlson and former U.S. Sen. David Durenburger wrote to Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., urging him to keep his 2002 campaign promise to protect ANWR from drilling.

According to the Department of Energy's own estimates in a July report, tapping oil reserves in ANWR would reduce our dependence on foreign oil from 68 percent to 64 percent, and not until 2025. Opening ANWR to drilling would reduce world oil prices by 57 cents a barrel at the peak of production in 2025, according to the report. The report also indicated the price of gasoline would drop by less than 1 cent per gallon.

For that, are we willing to compromise a wilderness that supports the greatest variety of plant and animal life of any park or refuge in the Arctic worldwide?

There's another reason not to open ANWR to drilling, according to the conservation leaders who wrote Rep. Kennedy this past week. They are concerned that drilling in ANWR would set a precedent that could allow oil development in the Upper Mississippi River Fish and Wildlife Refuge and the Minnesota Valley National Wildlife Refuge in Minnesota.

Clearly, these are difficult times in a nation that relies heavily on oil and gas. All of us are concerned about how gas prices will affect our own finances as well as our national economy.

To President Bush's credit, he has begun to urge the nation to conserve oil resources. But his administration also is pushing for oil exploration in ANWR, touting the need to have America produce more of its own petroleum. What proponents fail to mention is how little that production would affect the price of gasoline and our dependence on foreign oil.

Conservation of our resources and development of alternative energy sources is the answer to reducing our dependence on foreign oil.

ANWR is not the answer.

SAM COOK is the News Tribune's outdoors writer.