varSubject = "subject=National treasure in jeopardy"; National treasure in jeopardy

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would carry too high a price

By PHYLLIS MAINS
vice chair of the Sierra Club's Iowa chapter

O n March 16 an amendment to remove drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from the Senate budget bill was narrowly defeated by a vote of 51 to 49. If language that allows drilling is included in the final budget bill, this national treasure could be lost forever.

While some politicians are desperately pushing to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the oil industry appears to be backing away. According to a recent New York Times article, "the major oil companies are largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a tiny fraction of America's needs."

Polar bears

Both ConocoPhillips and British Petroleum, two of the largest oil companies in Alaska, have withdrawn from Arctic Power and are no longer actively promote drilling in the region. The 1999 USGS estimates less than a six-month supply of oil could be economically recovered from the Arctic Refuge (about 3.2 billion barrels, spread over a 50-year period), and it would take at least 10 years to reach consumers.

Drilling in the Arctic Refuge would not solve U.S. energy problems or affect gas prices at the pump. Oil prices are the result of supply and demand on the international level and not the result of oil production from any individual oil field.

Nearly the entire arctic coast of Alaska is already available for oil and gas exploration or development. The Arctic Refuge coastal plain represents only 5 percent of the coast. Realistic alternatives to drilling there include increased production from existing Alaskan fields and exploration already set aside by the federal government in the National Petroleum Reserve west of Prudhoe Bay.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge contains America's last great wilderness and belongs to all Americans. In 1960 President Dwight Eisenhower first set aside the refuge "for the purpose of protecting its wilderness, wildlife, and recreational values." Americans are finding fewer undeveloped public lands in which to hike, hunt, fish, kayak and canoe.

The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge contains the greatest wildlife diversity above the Arctic Circle and would be threatened by drilling. At Prudhoe Bay, toxic spills occur at the rate of more than one per day. Oil field development in the Arctic requires development of seismic exploration trails, gravel mines, roads, drill pads, pipelines, processing facilities, operating and housing facilities and waste and sewage treatment facilities that would stretch across over 1,000 square miles of coastal tundra.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers the 1.5 million acre coastal plain to be the center of wildlife activity in the refuge. More than 180 bird species from four continents and almost every state in the United States nest or migrate in the Arctic Refuge. Some of these migratory birds find their way to Iowa.

If the arctic habitat is destroyed there would be fewer ducks and geese to hunt and fewer birds to watch in Iowa. The porcupine caribou herd migrates from Canada to the coastal plain to give
birth. The coastal plain is home to musk oxen, wolves, wolverines, arctic foxes and the largest population of land-denning polar bears in America. The vast majority of world oil reserves lie outside the United States.

The best way to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil is to conserve more, waste less and invest in renewable forms of energy.

Technology exists today to make all new vehicles average 40 miles per gallon within 10 years. That would save more oil than we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf and the tiny amount in the Arctic Refuge combined.