Passage 1

　　Is there enough oil beneath the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (保護區) (ANWR) to help secure America’s energy future? President Bush certainly thinks so. He has argued that tapping ANWR’s oil would help ease California’s electricity crisis and provide a major boost to the country’s energy independence. But no one knows for sure how much crude oil lies buried beneath the frozen earth with the last government survey, conducted in 1998, projecting output anywhere from 3 billion to 16 billion barrels.

　　The oil industry goes with the high end of the range, which could equal as much as 10% of U.S. consumption for as long as six years. By pumping more than 1 million barrels a day from the reserve for the next two three decades, lobbyists claim, the nation could cut back on imports equivalent to all shipments to the U.S. from Saudi Arabia. Sounds good. An oil boom would also mean a multibillion-dollar windfall (意外之財) in tax revenues, royalties (開采權使用費) and leasing fees for Alaska and the Federal Government. Best of all, advocates of drilling say, damage to the environment would be insignificant. “We’ve never had a document case of oil rig chasing deer out onto the pack ice.” says Alaska State Representative Scott Ogan.

　　Not so far, say environmentalists. Sticking to the low end of government estimates, the National Resources Defense Council says there may be no more than 3.2 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain of ANWR, a drop in the bucket that would do virtually nothing to ease America’s energy problems. And consumers would wait up to a decade to gain any benefits, because drilling could begin only after much bargaining over leases, environmental permits and regulatory review. As for ANWR’s impact on the California power crisis, environmentalists point out that oil is responsible for only 1% of the Golden State’s electricity output—and just 3% of the nation’s.

　　21. What does President Bush think of tapping oil in ANWR?

　　A) It will exhaust the nation’s oil reserves.

　　B) It will help secure the future of ANWR.

　　C) It will help reduce the nation’s oil imports.

　　D) It will increase America’s energy consumption.(C)

　　22. We learn from the second paragraph that the American oil industry ________.

　　A) believes that drilling for oil in ANWR will produce high yields

　　B) tends to exaggerate America’s reliance on foreign oil

　　C) shows little interest in tapping oil in ANWR

　　D) expects to stop oil imports from Saudi Arabia(A)

　　23. Those against oil drilling in ANWR argue that ________.

　　A) it can cause serious damage to the environment

　　B) it can do little to solve U.S. energy problems

　　C) it will drain the oil reserves in the Alaskan region

　　D) it will not have much commercial value(B)

　　24. What do the environmentalists mean by saying “Not so fast” (Line 1, Para. 3)?

　　A) Oil exploitation takes a long time

　　B) The oil drilling should be delayed

　　C) Don’t be too optimistic

　　D) Don’t expect fast returns(C)

　　25. It can be learned from the passage that oil exploitation beneath ANWR’s frozen earth ________.

　　A) remains a controversial issue

　　B) is expected to get under way soon

　　C) involves a lot of technological problems

　　D) will enable the U.S. to be oil independent(A)