Argument against offshore drilling is one-sided

WHENEVER ENERGY is in the headlines, the Globe persists in misleading its readers with one-sided arguments about the risk of offshore drilling ("Drilling for snake oil," Aug. 19).

The Globe parrots environmentalists' hysteria that drilling endangers fishing in Georges Bank despite evidence to the contrary. Europe's North Sea fishery is one of the world's largest, and its waters are far more hostile. Yet for 30 years it has accommodated one of the world's largest offshore drilling operations, and the fish yield has multiplied several times. Louisiana's fishery is still robust despite the presence of 3,200 drilling rigs offshore.

Fifteen years ago a team of researchers at Woods Hole analyzed previous studies of offshore drilling's effects on fishing and the ecosystem, and concluded that with proper environmental safeguards fishing and drilling were compatible.

Critics' arguments that we cannot drill our way out of $4-a-gallon gasoline are a distorted half-truth, because relief from foreign oil will require far more oil drilling along with more nuclear, conservation, and alternative fuels. Drilling will be a big part of any solution.

And the Globe's dismissing drilling because its yield would not be realized for a decade is sophistry. That same assertion was rejected 30 years ago as an argument against building the Alaskan pipeline. And if President Clinton had not vetoed drilling in Alaska's wildlife refuge in 1996, we would have 27 million more gallons of gasoline and diesel fuel every day to ease the cost at the pump.

FRANK TIVNAN
Dennis