Don't raid arctic refuge.

Byline: The Register-Guard

Republicans traditionally have placed greater trust in the instincts and know-how of Big Business than in those of Big Government.

So it's puzzling that Republican leaders in Congress are making yet another push to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling at the same time major oil producers seem to be losing interest.

Sen. Pete Domenici, the New Mexico Republican who is chairman of the energy committee, has declared refuge drilling his No. 1 legislative priority. He and his GOP colleagues believe it's so important that they're planning to circumvent normal congressional procedures by inserting drilling legislation in a budget resolution that cannot be filibustered by a Democratic minority.

Yet just as Republicans prepare to pursue this strategy, the oil industry's enthusiasm for drilling in ANWR is doing a fast fade. ConocoPhillips, the largest oil producer on Alaska's North Slope, recently withdrew from a coalition lobbying to open the refuge. The company says it has other priorities, including developing areas already open to exploration and securing approval for a natural gas pipeline from Alaska.

Meanwhile, BP PLC, the second-largest Alaska oil producer, recently announced plans to scale back its exploration for new fields in Alaska and, like ConocoPhillips, pulled out of the lobbying coalition.

Something's askew in this picture. If opening the refuge isn't an urgent priority for major oil companies, why is it for congressional Republicans - so urgent they're willing to curtail debate and sidestep normal legislative processes?

That and other questions should be answered before Congress votes on arctic drilling. Despite administration claims to the contrary, drilling in the refuge will do little to reduce long-term U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The federal government's own U.S. Geological Survey says the refuge contains less oil than this country consumes in six months. Even the most optimistic industry officials concede that oil wouldn't be available for eight to 10 years at the earliest.

If lawmakers are really serious about reducing this nation's reliance on Middle Eastern oil, they should require automakers to produce cars that go farther on a gallon of gas. Even an incremental increase in mileage standards would save more oil than could ever be pumped out of the arctic refuge.

While drilling wouldn't completely devastate the refuge as some critics have claimed, it would cause significant damage to a remote wilderness that provides irreplaceable tundra habitat for polar bears, elk, musk oxen, caribou and more than 130 species of birds.

There may come a time some day when the United States needs the oil in the refuge - and when technology enables it to be removed with less damage to the environment. In the meantime, whatever quantity of oil lies beneath the refuge is like a national energy savings account that grows more valuable each year. The time to tap the account is not now - it's not even on the horizon.

Given the declining interest by oil companies and the abundance of preferable alternatives available to Congress, Republicans should abandon this latest raid on the arctic refuge, one that runs starkly counter to their party's traditional respect for market realities.