TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/091790/0917205.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 3.7 KB | 83 lines

                Ω╩y
                                                          BUSINESS, Page 65

Mystery Pool Under the Plain


Should Alaska's wildlife refuge be opened to oil drilling?


    Which deserves priority: preserving America's wilderness or
finding a steady supply of domestic oil? In the aftermath of
the Exxon Valdez spill in March 1989, the environment was the
overwhelming favorite. But in the month since the Iraqi
invasion of Kuwait, which has pushed oil prices from $17 a bbl.
to more than $30, the political mood has changed rapidly. The
prime focus of the debate is the coastal plain of Alaska's
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a pristine wilderness area
that may hold the largest untapped oil deposit in the U.S.

    Situated on Alaska's North Slope just west of the Canadian
border, the 19 million-acre refuge is home to several hundred
Eskimos, grizzlies, musk-oxen, wolves, migratory birds and a
herd of 180,000 caribou, whose majestic spring migration has
inspired naturalists to call the preserve "America's
Serengeti." But to oilmen and Alaska politicians, the refuge's
1.5 million-acre coastal plain is a potential lode of black
gold.

    The size of the oil deposit, however, is a mystery. The
Interior Department's estimate ranges from 600 million bbl. of
crude to as much as 9.2 billion bbl. At the high end, the oil
reservoir would be roughly equal to Alaska's enormous Prudhoe
Bay field, or more than the U.S. uses in a year. The Interior
Department puts the odds of finding a commercially exploitable
oil field in the refuge at 1 in 5, vs. the industry's typical
success rate of 1 in 50.

    Almost all elected officials in Alaska believe the U.S.
should open the coastal plain for drilling, which could create
thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue. The
Bush Administration, citing a study contending that the oil
could be pumped without harming the environment, has proposed
that the drilling ban be lifted. In addition, the Senate last
month unanimously passed an amendment to the defense
authorization bill that obliges the President to keep oil
imports below 50% of domestic demand. If passed by a joint
resolution of Congress, the amendment could open all federal
lands outside national parks -- including national forests,
wildlife refuges and the outer continental shelf -- to oil and
gas development.

    Advocates of drilling on the refuge emphasize that the
pumping operations would involve an area only the size of
Delaware, while the entire preserve is nearly as large as
Maine. And the crude could be carried cheaply in the 800-mile
trans-Alaska pipeline, which has a good safety record.
Environmentalists, however, see the drilling as a gross
intrusion on one of the last untouched wilderness areas. Many
Eskimos favor development because they would legally share in
the income. But the Gwich'in Indians in Arctic Village (pop.
100) near the refuge bitterly oppose it. "This is a simple
issue. We have the right to continue our way of life. We are
caribou people," says Sara James, a tribal leader.

    In the short run, the U.S. would be foolish to count on a
new Alaskan bonanza to fuel a gas-guzzling life-style. If oil
is found on the refuge, major production could take 10 years
to gear up. Even then, the contribution to U.S. petroleum needs
would be relatively small compared with other means of reducing
demand and finding alternative energy sources. One Senate
proposal to boost auto fuel-efficiency standards 40% in the
next decade could save 10 times as much oil as the refuge might
produce. And while a new oil field would eventually run dry,
the savings would be ongoing.

By Andrea Dorfman. Reported by Glenn Garelik/Washington and
David Postman/Juneau.