Charles Foster wrote a seemingly convincing letter July 12 that was in effect, very wrong. Foster argues that it would be more cost efficient if we drilled for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge instead of forcing oil companies to drill on land they currently hold leases to. But according to MSNBC, “it’s highly unlikely there’s enough there (in ANWR) to make much of a difference in oil prices.” As for drilling in ANWR, which I would like to remind you that the W and R stand for Wildlife Refuge, as per the Energy Department, even if Congress approved drilling, production would not begin for at least a decade and any eventual impact in price will depend on how much oil is actually there, which is still unknown. Why in the world should we drill in a National Wildlife Refuge for more oil than on the land the oil companies are already leasing? Foster believes we get more oil from ANWR, but it’s going to take over a decade until we see any of this oil in the first place, and by that time we need to be less dependent on oil altogether. We should not be looking to oil for our future; our future depends on investing in alternative fuels that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Dale Drescher

Albert Lea