Washington, Jun 10, 2008 -

Surging gasoline prices have prompted renewed calls for drilling in environmentally sensitive areas, particularly Alaska's potentially oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We supported drilling in ANWR long before gas topped $4 a gallon and continue to do so. But let's be clear about what it would and wouldn't do.

It wouldn't bring relief from today's high prices, as President Bush implied Monday. And it wouldn't make the United States energy independent.

So does that mean, as critics suggest, that it's not worth doing? Not at all. Drilling in ANWR and offshore is an important piece of any long-term strategy to make the nation less vulnerable to oil-producing nations and supply disruptions. It is one of many imperfect steps needed to both increase the supply of oil and curb the demand for it, while seeking energy alternatives.

It's true that any serious oil production from ANWR would take about 10 years. But dealing with the energy situation requires an ability to look beyond quick fixes. The fact is, ANWR oil would be flowing now if President Clinton hadn't vetoed a drilling bill in 1995.

Environmentalists charge that drilling would despoil a pristine area in northern Alaska that is about the size of South Carolina and is a critical habitat for caribou, musk oxen, bears and birds. In fact, exploration in the 19 million-acre refuge would be confined to 1.5 million acres, and drilling to just 2,000 acres, an area less than half that of Atlanta's airport.

Oil production would inevitably affect the refuge. But studies at Prudhoe Bay to the west, where oil has been produced since 1977 in an area more than twice the size of the one planned for ANWR, show that the effects can be minimized and wildlife protected, particularly with today's newer exploration technology.

What would the nation get in return? Not enough to solve the nation's oil problem, but enough to make a difference. Estimates are that the area could eventually produce about a million barrels of oil a day for 30 years. That's nearly 5% of the 21 million barrels a day Americans consume, and almost as much as the United States imports from Venezuela — where the money Americans spend for oil enriches a leader who bitterly opposes U.S. interests and helps fund an armed insurrection against U.S. ally Colombia.

Congress has been arguing about ANWR for nearly three decades; it's time to break the gridlock. The Senate had a chance to say yes to ANWR drilling last month but did not, opting instead to rail about energy prices and take the almost purely symbolic step of suspending efforts to fill the nation's Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

With a few fitful exceptions, such as raising car and truck mileage standards, Washington seems unable to take the nation's energy crisis seriously.

Both parties share the blame. Democrats, fearful of offending the environmental lobby, have led the effort against ANWR and offshore drilling. Republicans ganged up late last year to kill a smart but modest proposal that would have required the nation's utilities to produce as much as 15% of their electricity with renewable energy such as solar, wind and biomass by 2020.

What's left is not an energy policy; it's wishful thinking. It took a long time and a lot of missed opportunities to get to $4 gas, and it'll take a lot more than bashing OPEC and the oil companies to dig out of this hole. Extracting more oil from domestic reserves, using environmentally sensitive techniques, is an important part of the answer.