In the staff editorial “Protect the Refuge” (Editorial, March 5), The Crimson leaves out key facts that make the case for drilling very persuasive. The article says that the USGS predicts that there are only “3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable crude oil” in the reserve; however, that misrepresents the total amount available. The phrase “economically recoverable” only means the amount of oil “for which the costs of discovery, development, and production, including a return to capital, can be recovered at a given well-head price.” The figures The Crimson use rely on the assumption of the 1998 price of $24 a barrel. With oil prices now nearly $29 a barrel and rising, the amount of “economically recoverable oil” has increased. Since the amount of “technically recoverable oil” is between 5.7 and 16.0 billion barrels, as oil prices rise, so will the amount of oil economically recoverable. Furthermore, as the technology for oil drilling improves, oil companies are able to extract more oil at cheaper costs and at smaller deposit areas, which will also increase the amount available. With the 1998 estimates higher than the 1987 results, many predict that there might be even more oil available than can be detected by current surveying equipment.

The Crimson also says that “much of the Republican bill is worth saving” such as “tax incentives for consumers to use renewable energy sources and buy energy-efficient cars and homes.” However, The Crimson ignores the fact that such proposals would require additional government spending. The proposal by Senator Murkowski which has been endorsed by President Bush and Energy Secretary Abraham would use the revenue generated by leasing the ANWR area to pay for those conservation proposals that would otherwise be difficult to fund.

Additionally, the area of the ANWR that is eligible to be opened to oil drilling is only 1.5 million acres of a 19 million acre area—the other 17.5 million acres do have the protected wildlife status that The Crimson endorses. And, though The Crimson finds “it difficult to believe” that drilling could be so “innocuous,” with advancing oil technology, the actual surface area which would have to be drilled IS only about three square miles, regardless of what The Crimson wants to believe. Though The Crimson also decries Prudhoe Bay as a polluted mess, Prudhoe Bay development has been successful and responsibility is improving. With strict standards for conservation, the number of caribou in the area have tripled since 1978 and polar bears have been virtually undisturbed.

And we must not ignore the needs and opinions of the Alaskans. The state’s entire Congressional delegation, the state’s Senate and House, the governor and 78 percent of residents of the village of Kaktovik, the Native village within the coastal plain, support development of the ANWR. Those who are closest to the area and know the unbiased facts of the situation understand that drilling can be done responsibly. Done correctly, oil drilling in the ANWR will both increase conservation efforts and aid economic growth.

The Crimson is right that we are not “clutching to our last barrel of oil.” But, on March 6th, oil prices rose over 1 percent on the heels of reports from the American Petroleum Institute that American oil supplies are at their lowest level since January 1974. Opening a small portion of the ANWR to oil drilling will give the government an influx of revenue in the short term and a substantial amount of oil in the long term, both of which will help the U.S. decrease our dependence on foreign oil and formulate a long-term energy policy—a concept foreign to those of us who have adolesced under the Clinton Administration. President Bush and his Republican Senate colleagues should be applauded, not chastised, for having the foresight to promote drilling now, rather than later.

Mattie J. Germer ’03

March 7, 2001