Opinion: Protection from drilling

Pumping oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge may increase our short-term oil supply, but it could endanger its fragile and beautiful wildlife.

President Clinton shouldn't wait for the final election verdict to settle one argument between George W. Bush and Al Gore. During the campaign, Bush said he would approve oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Gore would put the refuge off-limits.

Using the 1906 Antiquities Act, Clinton could proclaim a part of the refuge -- including the thriving coastal plain -- a national monument. That would provide more protection against oil exploration.

Both Republican and Democratic presidents since Theodore Roosevelt have used the act dozens of times to protect public land, including what became the Grand Canyon National Park. In 1996, Clinton established the Canyons of the Escalante National Monument in Utah, saving a significant desert landscape from becoming a coal mine.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is adjacent to Alaska's North Slope oil-producing area, and Bush looks to it to relieve U.S. dependence on foreign oil. Oil production and environmental protection are compatible, Bush said while campaigning. "We can do both, taking out energy and leaving only footprints," he said.

Is Bush right when he says the economic gain is worth the environmental risk?

ECONOMIC GAIN: No one can say for sure how much petroleum lies beneath the Arctic Refuge, but the U.S. Geological Survey probably has the best guess. It says about 3.2-billion barrels of oil are economically recoverable at a price of $20 per barrel. At the current oil price of more than $30 per barrel, the oil company drilling in the refuge would make a lot of money.

But would the extra oil really help the nation reduce its dependence on foreign supplies? Not really. The United States imports about 10-million barrels of oil per day, so the total production from the refuge would equal less than a one-year supply of imported oil. Considering our daily consumption of oil -- nearly 20-million barrels per day -- we could burn through the entire Arctic Refuge supply in less than six months. That's a small gain by any measure.

ENVIRONMENTAL RISK: The Arctic Refuge totals 19-million acres, but its "biological heart" is the 1.5-million-acre coastal plain, which shelters the refuge's largest concentration of wildlife. A stunningly beautiful place, it is home to the largest international herd of caribou, which give birth to 40,000 calves there each year. Polar bears dig their dens on the coastal plain, musk oxen live there year-round and birds from as far away as South America migrate there in the summer. It is the coastal plain where Bush wants to drill for oil.

Is it possible, as Bush said, to take the oil and leave only footprints? The best answer lies next to the coastal plain on the North Slope around Prudhoe Bay, the source of oil pumped through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There, the oil industry has transformed an area as large as Rhode Island with 4,000 wells, 500 miles of roads, 1,100 miles of pipelines and 450 waste pits, according to the Washington Post. And consider this chilling fact: A spill a day is reported at Prudhoe Bay.

The coastal plain area of the Arctic Refuge is only 5 percent of Alaska's North Slope. The other 95 percent is already available for oil exploration and extraction. It makes no sense to squander a priceless piece of wilderness for a dubious short-term gain.

President Clinton's choice should be clear. He should create a Coastal Plain National Monument.

Back to Opinion

Contact the Times | Privacy Policy
Standard of Accuracy | Terms, Conditions & Copyright

From the Times
Opinion page