SEE if you can work out what this article is about from the following key words: Alaska, pristine habitat, birds, caribou, controversial oil development.
You鈥檙e guessing the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Good try. After all, a controversial plan to open the refuge鈥檚 coastal plain to oil drilling is now moving through the US Congress after years of wrangling.
But you鈥檙e only getting warm. The correct answer is the National Petroleum Reserve, Alaska. This 95,000-square-kilometre tract of land lies about 180 kilometres to the west of the wildlife refuge. The name doesn鈥檛 scream 鈥渧aluable habitat鈥�, but ecologists and environmentalists say that鈥檚 exactly what it is. And, as is the case with the wildlife refuge, they claim it is under threat from oil and gas development.
Advertisement
Both the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve occupy part of a coastal plain that stretches across the whole of northern Alaska. This plain, often called the North Slope, is divided into three sections. In the middle are giant oilfields on land owned by Alaska. On either side of this are two huge tracts of federal land, the wildlife refuge to the east and the petroleum reserve to the west.
The petroleum reserve is about the size of Ireland, the largest piece of public land in the US, and almost entirely undeveloped. It is home to Teshekpuk Lake, the largest lake on the North Slope, and the huge Colville river, as well as a rich system of ponds, marshes and lagoons that the Alaska chapter of the National Audubon Society calls 鈥渙ne of the single most valuable wetland complexes鈥n the entire Arctic鈥�. Two caribou herds roam the reserve and millions of migratory birds nest, breed or moult there, including rare yellow-billed loons and two threatened species of sea duck, Steller鈥檚 eider and the spectacled eider. The Colville river is noted for one of the world鈥檚 densest concentrations of birds of prey, including the once-endangered Arctic peregrine. Inupiat Eskimos depend on the reserve鈥檚 stocks of caribou and wildfowl for food.
Conservationists and biologists who know both the petroleum reserve and the wildlife refuge are hard-pressed to say which is the more biologically important. 鈥淭hey both have critical ecological value,鈥� says Deborah Williams, executive director of the Alaska Conservation Foundation in Anchorage. When it comes to public profile, however, there鈥檚 no competition. As George Ahmaogak, mayor of the North Slope borough, the administrative region covering the whole of northern Alaska, once put it: 鈥淐ompare those two names. One of them is a wildlife refuge and the other is a petroleum reserve. Which one is going to get your environmental juices flowing?鈥�
As the petroleum reserve鈥檚 name implies, it is not a wildlife refuge. President Warren Harding established it in 1923 as a potential supply of oil for the US navy. In 1976, Congress passed an act that shifted management of the reserve from the military to the Department of the Interior and encouraged oil and gas leasing. Although the act calls for 鈥渕aximum protection鈥� of the environment in important areas, it makes it clear that oil takes priority over conservation. Even so, certain parts of the petroleum reserve have long been recognised and set aside as too ecologically important to develop 鈥� until now.
鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 sound like a valuable habitat, but that鈥檚 what it is鈥�
The reserve has been poked and prodded since before Harding鈥檚 day, and much has been recorded about potential wells. Only in recent years, however, have oil companies been in a position to explore it seriously, in part because of better technology, and also because of high oil prices. In 1998 the Clinton administration opened 19,000 square kilometres of land in the north-east corner 鈥� the section that holds the most environmentally important parts, including Teshekpuk Lake 鈥� to leasing. Since then, 17 exploratory wells have been drilled.
Clinton鈥檚 plan excluded all development on 1500 square kilometres of environmentally sensitive land, including Teshekpuk Lake itself and important wetlands to its north and west. It also banned surface activity on a 1000-square-kilometre piece of prime caribou calving territory. Last year, however, the Bush administration abandoned even these minimal safeguards and announced a plan to allow development on all but a tiny portion of the protected land in the petroleum reserve鈥檚 north-east corner. This, the administration said, would more than treble the amount of recoverable oil in that part of the reserve, from 600 million to 2.1 billion barrels. Only Teshekpuk Lake itself would stay closed to drilling for the time being.
The revised plan immediately drew political flak. Clinton鈥檚 interior secretary, Bruce Babbitt, pointed out that much of the land he had opened in 1998 remained unexplored, and suggested that the oil industry concentrate on that for now. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a slice of pie on your plate,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hy don鈥檛 you eat it before you ask for more?鈥�
But the wider world hardly noticed. While the tug of war over the wildlife refuge is high-profile, widely seen as symbolic and even 鈥渟exy鈥�, the dispute over the petroleum reserve just doesn鈥檛 get the public鈥檚 attention, says Kelly Hill Scanlon of the Northern Alaska Environmental Center, a non-profit environmental group in Fairbanks. 鈥淭he Arctic refuge is debated on the floor of the House, it鈥檚 written about, it鈥檚 talked about,鈥� says Scanlon. 鈥淭he petroleum reserve is no less important, but it鈥檚 unknown.鈥�
The focus of attention on the wildlife refuge may be just as well for the oil industry, as it turns its attention in the other direction. 鈥淎ll of the environmental folks have been focused on this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge debate while the oil industry has been going huckledybuck to the west,鈥� says Larry Houle, general manager of The Alaska Support Industry Alliance, an association for oil-industry contractors.
While Houle remains confident that oil companies will be interested in the wildlife refuge if and when it is opened, he speculates that the loud refuge debate 鈥渉as been a wonderful diversion鈥� of public attention away from exploration in western Alaska.
No takers
The real level of oil industry interest in the wildlife refuge remains an open question. In February, The New York Times reported that oil companies had lost interest in the wildlife refuge, quoting an anonymous Bush adviser as saying: 鈥淚f the government gave them the leases for free, they wouldn鈥檛 take them.鈥� Deborah Williams of the Alaska Conservation Foundation was a US Department of the Interior official from 1995 to 1999 but didn鈥檛 see any evidence of interest in those years. 鈥淲hen I was special assistant to the secretary of the interior for Alaska, there was basically no meaningful interest in the Arctic refuge expressed by the oil industry,鈥� she says.
What is more, in recent years, three of the biggest industry players 鈥� BP, Chevron Texaco and ConocoPhillips 鈥� have stopped giving money to the lobbying group Arctic Power, which is devoted to opening the wildlife refuge鈥檚 coastal plain. Only Exxon still funds the group, with what Arctic Power鈥檚 Adrian Herrera calls 鈥渁 minimal contribution鈥�. He adds: 鈥淲e get our money from the people of Alaska, not the oil companies.鈥�
The Alaska Oil and Gas Association, however, says it is sure oil companies want to explore the wildlife refuge. Several companies have indicated as much in recent weeks. 鈥淚 think it鈥檚 not accurate to say that simply because the oil companies are not visiting the doors of Congress and participating heavily in the effort to get it opened, that there鈥檚 no interest in having it opened,鈥� says Marilyn Crockett, the association鈥檚 deputy director.
鈥淭his won鈥檛 be the last battle for Alaska鈥檚 environment鈥�
Whatever the truth of industry鈥檚 intentions toward the wildlife refuge, there鈥檚 no doubt it is interested in the petroleum reserve. Federal geologists have predicted that it could contain more economically recoverable oil than the wildlife refuge 鈥� between 5.9 and 13.2 billion barrels, compared with between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels under the coastal plain of the wildlife refuge.
In a 2004 lease sale, five companies paid a total of $53 million for the right to develop oil and gas in the petroleum reserve鈥檚 north-west sector. And that鈥檚 not even the part of the reserve that interests industry the most 鈥� the north-east corner.
One reason the north-east corner is so attractive is that it is closest to the existing oil infrastructure around Prudhoe Bay. In fact, the industry has already breached the eastern boundary of the reserve with the expansion of an oil field called Alpine, operated by ConocoPhillips and Anadarko Petroleum. In 2008, new wells there will supply the first commercial oil from the petroleum reserve.
Geologically speaking, the north-east sector has the highest oil and gas potential. That鈥檚 because it is close to an underground structure called the Barrow Arch, a huge ridge running parallel to the coastline which in places has vast amounts of oil trapped beneath it (see Map). According to the federal Bureau of Land Management, all oilfields now in production on Alaska鈥檚 North Slope are on or near the Barrow Arch: the huge Prudhoe Bay field, discovered in 1968, is right on top of it. And, as ConocoPhillips noted in comments on the Bush plan it submitted in August: 鈥淗istorical exploration鈥� clearly shows that the greatest potential for commercial hydrocarbon occurrences in the petroleum reserve exists within 40 miles from the crest of the Barrow Arch.鈥�
The arch follows the coastline of northern Alaska from Barrow in the west right up to the boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 鈥� and then it dives below the seabed. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 the reason we don鈥檛 think that there鈥檚 the chance for Prudhoe Bay types of oil fields in the wildlife refuge,鈥� says geologist Ken Bird of the US Geological Survey. 鈥淭he features that make Prudhoe Bay just aren鈥檛 there.鈥�
But the petroleum reserve is a different story: parts of the north-east sector are within striking distance of the Barrow Arch. Here, too, government scientists doubt there鈥檚 another truly huge find, but the geology is still of great interest. Unfortunately, it just so happens that the Barrow Arch is also very close to the most ecologically sensitive areas.
A few weeks ago, it looked as if the new petroleum reserve plan was about to get a final go-ahead in the form of the signature of interior secretary Gale Norton. But protests from Inupiat and Yupik Eskimos have stalled its progress for the time being. They include a blistering 30-page letter from mayor Ahmaogak. He complained that the plan 鈥渨ould utterly fail to protect the internationally significant wildlife resources鈥� of the Teshekpuk Lake area.
Ahmaogak is no sentimental green. His electorate has benefited greatly from oil revenues, and he has a history of supporting drilling. As such he is a valuable ally for the Department of the Interior. Ahmaogak wants to see the petroleum reserve opened up, but he wants the sensitive areas to remain off-limits.
Opposition from conservation groups, although not widely reported, has also been fierce. Critics have included the Pacific Flyway Council, which coordinates the protection of migratory game birds in western North America, federal and state biologists, conservation groups like the National Audubon Society and a group of 200 ornithologists and other wildlife professionals. The critics are particularly concerned about the tens of thousands of migrant waterfowl that use the region around Teshekpuk Lake for nesting or moulting. A full third of the population of one species in particular, Pacific black brant 鈥� as many as 30,000 birds at a time 鈥� relies on the area for its summer moult, a time when the birds are featherless and particularly spooked by disturbance.
Conservation values
When it comes to bird conservation the petroleum reserve is even more valuable than the wildlife refuge, says state waterfowl biologist Tom Rothe. 鈥淥ther than the 10,000 or so snow geese that come to the refuge in the fall to fatten up, the petroleum reserve has much more value to breeding birds, and it has that super-special moulting area,鈥� he says. 鈥淪o it kind of wins on the waterfowl front.鈥�
And conservation interests can overlap with those of indigenous Alaskans. In bird surveys this winter on the brants鈥� migration route in Mexico and along the Pacific coast, biologists found that black brant numbers are alarmingly low. Low numbers mean hunting restrictions, which dismay both the Inupiat and the Yupik of Alaska鈥檚 northern and western coasts. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 want to see complete closures,鈥� says Myron Naneng, president of the Association of Village Council Presidents, which represents indigenous people in the west of the state. The association wrote a letter to interior secretary Norton calling the revised plan 鈥渧ery foolish鈥�.
At present, the federal government is holding workshops and meetings with Ahmaogak and other activists, trying to agree on a revised plan. The hope is to finalise everything by the end of this month.
This won鈥檛 be the last battle for Alaska鈥檚 environment. Next on the list is a plan for leases in the southern part of the petroleum reserve. The industry hasn鈥檛 finished exploring the state land in the middle of the coastal plain, and of course the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may soon be opened. In other words, Alaska鈥檚 entire northern coastal plain is up for grabs 鈥� all in the name of feeding the US鈥檚 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit.
鈥淚t鈥檚 remarkable to me that we would essentially commit the entire Arctic coast to development,鈥� says John Schoen, senior scientist for the National Audubon Society鈥檚 Alaska chapter. 鈥淚s there no place on the United States鈥� only Arctic coastal plain that should be protected simply from a scientific standpoint?鈥�
