The Reach of Oil in the Arctic: Alaska, USA

Written by Pamela A. Miller

Arctic Connections

P.O. Box 101811

Anchorage, AK 99501

Phone: (907) 272 1909

Fax: (907) 272 9056

August 1997

Published by Greenpeace USA

1436 U Street NW

Washington, DC 20009 USA

Phone: (202)‑462‑1177 Fax: (202)‑462‑4507


Summary

Multinational oil corporations are investing billions of dollars to expand exploration and production across the Arctic. In their wake, they will leave behind toxic pollution and harm sensitive ecosystems. This renewed push for new extraction will increase emissions of carbon dioxide thus contributing to global climate change ‑‑ including in this frontier region where warming is already happening.

An unprecedented rate of new oil field construction is taking place in America's Arctic, across Alaska's North Slope and offshore in the Beaufort Sea, without comprehensive environmental review.  In the next five years, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (British Petroleum) and ARCO Alaska, Inc. (ARCO) ‑‑ companies which own 71% of North Slope leases ‑‑ plan to drill 1,000 new wells and spend US$5.2 billion expanding production at existing oil fields, bringing new offshore and nearby satellite fields on line, and in exploration of frontier areas.

Already, Prudhoe Bay and 14 other producing oil fields have dramatically transformed a vast Arctic wilderness. The oil fields already sprawl over 800 square miles (2,072 square km) of Alaska's State lands. Anticipated development of known fields will substantially spread an industrial complex on lands to the east and west of Prudhoe Bay and rapidly transform the Beaufort Sea. Offshore oil development like British Petroleum's proposed Northstar oil field involves unproven technology such as subsea oil pipelines buried in the permafrost seabed with risks of major oil spills below the Arctic Ocean ice.

In the history of Alaska, the oil industry has never had as cozy a relationship with government as today. The pro‑oil State legislature recently made laws on tax, royalty, and leasing terms more favorable to the corporations. Oil field expansion has also been spurred by decreased costs due to computer and technology advances and cost‑cutting management so that it is now economical to produce from smaller oil fields than it has been previously.

In the past, industry and government said the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline would run out soon, but industry now states that North Slope production will equal or exceed current levels by the year 2000, and foresees that Prudhoe Bay and nearby fields will keep pumping until 2030‑40 without new discoveries or production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. To date, 32 oil fields have been discovered on the North Slope. On the periphery of the producing fields there may be 50‑60 more satellite fields. The State of Alaska estimates that 7 billion more barrels of oil will be pumped from known North Slope fields by 2015; however, its official projections have consistently underestimated future production.

The oil industry is not only bringing vast amounts of known oil reserves into production, but it is pressing to explore in sensitive frontier areas. For example, ARCO's offshore Warthog well is located in the migratory path of bowhead whales in Camden Bay along the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coast. The State of Alaska plans vast offshore lease sales in the nearshore zone of the entire Beaufort Sea and giant area‑wide sales for all of its North Slope lands that will continue domination of these areas by the oil companies into the next century.

The Clinton administration has been steadfast in its opposition to opening to oil drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a protected area in the northeast corner of Alaska.  But it has been friendly to multinational oil corporations in other ways, such as the signing of legislation ending the ban on export of North Slope crude oil Alaskan oil is now tankered to China, Japan, and Korea.  The U.S. Minerals Management Service continues planning to offer vast Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to leasing. For the first time in over a decade, the U.S. Interior Department plans for new leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska.  British Petroleum, ARCO, Exxon, and Chevron continue to press to open the last 5% of the North Slope wilderness not available to them for drilling or development ‑‑ the coastal plain of America's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

This expansion of the oil industry now underway will have enormous impacts on the wildlife habitats and the homeland of Native people in the Arctic.  The productive "Arctic ring of life" where the zone of ice meets the shoreline will be

changed forever.

With the expansion of oil and gas development, more oil wells will be drilled through shifting ice, in the migratory pathways of whales and caribou, and in bird nesting grounds.  The potential for uncontrolled oil well blowouts in the icy seas forebodes disastrous consequences.  Tankers may ply ice‑infested waters and oil spills will foul rich bays and lagoons tucked into the shorelines.  The tundra will be crisscrossed by permanent scars from roads, pipeline, and other infrastructure. The expanded reach of oil development will open now inaccessible Arctic areas for extraction of coal, minerals, and more industrial activities.

The extraction of billions more barrels of oil will be felt far beyond the sensitive Arctic region as the burning of the oil fuels global climate change.  The threat of climate change is now an acknowledged fact and no serious scientist questions that this is caused by the continuing emissions of greenhouse gases, the chief one being carbon dioxide, from the use of fossil fuels. The United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) has established ecological limits which define "dangerous climate change," and in order to stay below these limits, the world cannot afford to use even a quarter of the current reserves of fossil fuels.  Therefore, it is irresponsible public policy to encourage the oil industry to continue the search for new reserves.  Furthermore, it is a waste of private capital for the oil industry to make investments for new oil reserves when a truly sustainable future is going to need the development of renewable energy supplies which do not threaten the climate.

MAP 1.  North Slope Oil and Gas Fields

 

.
MAP 2.  Cook Inlet Oil & Gas Fields.


MAP 3.  MMS Alaska Planning Areas & State Lease Sale Areas.
Overview

Scope of Oil

Multinational oil corporations are investing billions of dollars to expand exploration and production across the Arctic. In their wake, these companies will leave behind toxic pollution and harm sensitive ecosystems. This renewed push for new extraction will contribute to global climate change ‑‑ including in this frontier region where warming is already happening.

In Alaska's Arctic and sub‑arctic, oil and gas exploration and development has concentrated in Cook Inlet waters and the coastline of the Beaufort Sea. The first major commercial extraction of oil and gas began on the Kenai Peninsula and in Cook Inlet's rich coastal waters in the late 1950's. The oil industry's emphasis shifted to the North Slope in 1968 when the discovery well was drilled by Atlantic Richfield (ARCO) and Humble Oil and Refining Company (now Exxon Company, U.S.A.).

Prudhoe Bay and 14 other producing oil fields have dramatically transformed a vast Arctic area. The oil fields already sprawl over about 800 square miles (2,072 square km) of State of Alaska lands in the mid‑Beaufort Sea region of the North Slope.  On Alaska's North Slope roughly 22,000 acres (8,910 hectares) of habitat have been directly lost due to the oil field and Trans-Alaska Pipeline on Alaska's North Slope. The construction of hundreds of miles of roads and pipelines, 2 refineries, 12 gravel mines, 14 production plants, and 160 exploratory and production gravel drilling pads where more than 1,500 wells have been drilled has permanently scarred the landscape.[1]  Anticipated development of known oil fields will substantially expand the network of this industrial complex across the North Slope (Map 1).

To the south, in Cook Inlet, there are 24 natural gas fields (of which 10 are also producing oil) located in State coastal waters and the adjacent shorelines (Map 2). Huge areas of adjacent state and private land are currently on the auction block, and there is also pressure to greatly expand the State and Federal offshore leasing area in lower Cook Inlet. There is also interest by ARCO Alaska Inc. for renewed exploration through the new state licensing system in the Yakataga area where Alaska's first oil production took place along the Gulf of Alaska coast.[2]

Politics

My view was, in 1968 and '69, 'It'll only be five years before the oil industry

controls the government in Alaska.'   I was dead wrong. It took them 25 years to

do it.[3]            ‑‑Charlie Cole, Former Alaska Attorney General,1997.

In the history of Alaska, the oil industry has never had as cozy a relationship with government as today. When Alaska's Democratic Governor Tony Knowles came to office in 1994 he declared the state "open for business" and recently remarked, "we really do have a new era of partnership between the oil industry and the state."[4]  Knowles traveled to the corporate headquarters of British Petroleum, Atlantic Richfield (ARCO Alaska Inc.'s parent company), and Exxon.

The pro‑oil State legislature passed laws making tax, royalty, and leasing terms more favorable to the oil companies.  New oil field expansion has also been spurred by the industry's decreased costs due to advances in computer and technology methods used in 3‑dimensional seismic exploration to find new pools of oil, drilling methods, contracting practices, comprehensive agreements between BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (British Petroleum) and ARCO Alaska Inc. (ARCO) for sharing infrastructure, and huge layoffs.[5]

The Clinton administration has been steadfast in its opposition to opening to oil drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a protected area in the northeast comer of Alaska managed by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.  However, the Administration has been friendly to the multinational oil corporations in other ways contributing to the new frenzy of activity on the North Slope.  Clinton signed into law a bill ending the ban on export of Alaskan crude oil, a move expected to increase profit margins for British Petroleum and other companies.[6]  Clinton's administration has continued planning to offer vast Federal areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas to leasing. For the first time in over a decade, the US Interior Department launched a planning process for new leasing by the Bureau of Land Management in the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska, an area originally set aside to supply the military with oil in 1923.

Expansion Plans

The corporations are now greatly expanding their reach of exploitation across the State lands in the central Beaufort Sea coast (see Map 1). In the next five years, BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (British Petroleum) and ARCO Alaska, Inc. (ARCO)‑‑ companies which own 71% of North Slope leases and are the only operators of producing oil fields on the North Slope ‑‑ plan to drill over 1,000 new wells and spend US$5.2 billion in capital investments expanding production at their existing oil fields, bringing new satellite fields on line, and in exploration for new fields in frontier areas. Exxon Corporation, the third major North Slope producer says it is increasing its Alaska investment but has not publicly disclosed the amount.[7]

New pipelines will extend industrialization of oil fields to the east and the west (Map 1).  The two biggest players on the North Slope have largely divided up the zones of interest, with British Petroleum surging east‑‑ first with its Badami oil field near Mikkelsen Bay and then further east towards the boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which is currently off‑limits to oil drilling.  ARCO is pushing west with its Alpine field on the Colville River delta at the gateway of the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska (NPRA) and has been a driving force for a new leasing program in that area by the US Department of the Interior (Map 3).

The oil companies have also embarked on a rapid transformation of the Beaufort Sea with British Petroleum's new development proposals for the Northstar and Liberty oil fields.  These fields, located in State and Federal OCS waters, will require untested infrastructure such as subsea pipelines buried in the permafrost seabed to transport oil to the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline.  This new technology poses major threats of major oil spills below the ocean ice. Buried heated pipelines


would be difficult to monitor and repair due to their inaccessible location.  There would be serious risk of major environmental damage from the pipeline due to ice gouging of the sea floor, from permafrost melting or settling, or from ice pileup at the shoreline.[8]

Indeed, there already are signs of conflicts over offshore oil activity with wildlife and the habitats that are essential to subsistence cultures,[9] including the migratory route and feeding habitats for bowhead whales which are central to the culture of the Inupiat people.[10]

Multinational companies are also continuing to explore frontier areas distant from Prudhoe Bay such as ARCO's Warthog well in Camden Bay off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (see Map 1). This exploratory well poses major risks to polar bears, bowhead whales, and the shoreline of the refuge.[11]  Oil development off the Arctic Refuge coast would not only jeopardize the migratory whales and other marine life, but onshore pipelines, roads, and developments likely to follow, if oil is found, would place the calving and post‑calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd -- at the heart of the Gwich'in (Athabaskan) Indian culture -- in danger.[12]

Furthermore, British Petroleum, ARCO, Chevron Corporation and other oil companies have lobbied the U.S. Congress for over a decade to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and development (see Map 3). The coastal plain "1002" area where oil companies want to drill is the biological heart of the refuge which provides critical calving habitat for the Porcupine caribou herd, the most important onshore denning area for polar bears in the US, and vital fall staging habitat for snow geese (see Map 1). The oil companies were foiled by massive outcry by the American public and conservationists internationally when U.S. Senators Frank Murkowski and Ted Stevens and Representative Don Young tried to push a measure through the U.S. Congress to allow drilling and leasing in the refuge as part of a huge national budget bill. President Clinton vetoed that legislation in 1995.

By 1997, Alaska's Congressional representatives admitted that they could not pass a bill to open the refuge during the Clinton Administration, despite holding key Congressional committee leadership posts.[13]  Now, rather than outright attempts to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to drilling, the multinational companies are maneuvering to develop small oil fields bordering the refuge to get a foothold into this protected area. T wo examples are British Petroleum's Sourdough field and ARCO's Warthog well. The latter is aptly named after an attack bomber.

Wide Effects

This unprecedented expansion of the reach of the oil industry will have enormous effects on the wildlife habitats and the homeland of Native people in the Arctic.  The productive "Arctic ring of life" where the zone of ice meets the shoreline will be changed forever.[14]  And the effects of extracting billions of barrels more oil will be felt far beyond the sensitive Arctic region as the burning of the oil fuels global climate change.

The Carbon Budget

Carbon dioxide is produced when fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas, are burned and when forests are cut down and destroyed.  Over the past 150 years of industrialization more and more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases have entered the atmosphere, surrounding the earth with a thickening "blanket" of gases, and causing the climate to change."[15]

In 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the world's governments signed on to the Climate Convention.  By doing so they agreed to limit the build‑up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system.

Climate change: the threat. The world's top climate scientists, who make up the United Nation's advisory body called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), have warned that the build up of greenhouse gases is likely to cause the fastest increase in global average temperatures in the past 10,000 years.

Temperature increases beyond 1°C (1.8°F) may cause extensive ecosystem damage and widespread economic, social and environmental dislocation.[16]  Such an increase is likely within the next 30-40 years unless action is taken to reduce emissions.

What we have to do to prevent dangerous climate change. Greenpeace believes that in order to avoid dangerous climate change, emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases need to be reduced rapidly. The first step has to be a reduction of 20% by the year 2005 for industrialized countries.  Much deeper reductions must follow in the next century.  Ultimately there needs to be an internationally agreed ceiling placed on the amount of carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels.

This standard defines the total amount of oil, coal and gas we can afford to burn safely. With the assumptions outlined in the box (below), Greenpeace calculated this to be around 225 billion metric tons ‑ or gigatons ‑ of carbon (GtC) released from burning fossil fuels.[17]   If no action is taken on deforestation (which also‑releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere) the carbon budget will be lower.[18]

The 225GtC budget is a fraction of the total amount of known reserves of oil, coal and gas.  Much of what has already been found must stay in the ground for the sake of the protection of our climate.  This budget is equivalent to burning only half of all known fossil fuel reserves which would emit 452 GtC.[19]

To stay within the carbon budget and keep global temperature increases in the longer term below a 1°C (1.8 °F) increase, 75 per cent of the known, economically recoverable reserves of conventional fossil fuels will not be able to be used as fuels.  They must remain in the ground. This means that a phase out of fossil fuel use will be necessary.  This must begin soon.

Therefore, Greenpeace recommends that an immediate end to all new oil, coal and gas exploration and the rapid and comprehensive expansion of renewable energy systems such as wind, solar and biomass.

Greenpeace has calculated that if the world continues to use fossil fuels at the current rate, the 225GtC budget will be exhausted in 2025.  With primary energy demand increasing at a rate of 2 per cent per year globally, the budget could be exhausted by 2020.[20]

 

HOW TO LIMIT ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE[21]

 

q      Limit the long‑term increase of temperature to less than 1° C (1.8° F) above pre‑industrial levels in the long term.

q       Bring the rate of temperature increase to below 0. 1° C (0. 19° F) per decade as soon as possible.

q       Limit long‑term global average sea level rise to less than 20 centimeters (8 inches).

q       Limit the rate of sea level rise to a maximum of 20mm (0.8 inches) per decade.
 


Brief history of oil discovery, exploration, and extraction in Alaska.

Finding Oil

Native people in Alaska were long aware of oil seeps, places where crude oil showed at the surface, across the Arctic.[22]   Thomas Simpson, an early trader with the Hudson's Bay Company noted seeps along the coast east of Barrow in 1836‑37 and a U.S. Navy expedition 50 years later found oil near the Colville River.[23]   The explorer Brooks reported seeps along the Beaufort Sea coast at Cape Simpson in 1909.[24]  A gold prospector reported oil seeps to Standard Oil in 1917,[25] but claims made a few years later were not valid due to President Harding's designation of a large block of the western North Slope as the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 in 1923.

Russian explorers had reported oil seeps along Cook Inlet as early as 1853, and the first oil drilling in Alaska occurred on its west shore in 1898.  However, the first commercial oil production began in Alaska at Katalla (near present‑day Cordova) in 1902.  During the next 31 years, a total of 154,000 barrels of oil was produced, but this short‑lived boom of rigs along the Gulf of Alaska coast ended with a refinery fire in 1933.[26]

One of the earliest U.S. government scandals pertaining to oil and other mineral prospects was instigated by coal claims off the Gulf of Alaska at the turn of the century.  Prospecting in the Bering River coal field, not far from Katalla, was starting to boom when an Executive Order was issued in 1909 to withdraw all coal lands, and end all oil and gas staking, in Alaska.  Secretary of Agriculture Gifford Pinchot sought to halt the attempts of major corporations to evade the acreage limitations on coal lands entry required by the 1873 Mineral Leasing Act.  A national controversy, the Pinchot‑Ballinger affair, erupted which involved the issue of whether there should be private or public ownership of mineral resources.  Pinchot accused Interior Secretary Ballinger of collusion with a Seattle‑based corporation (which also had a monopoly over Transportation to Alaska and ran a third of the state's salmon canneries) in filing illegal claims


while he ran the Seattle land office for the Department.[27]

It was not until 1920, when Congress passed the Oil and Gas Leasing Act, that petroleum exploration was allowed to continue in Alaska. Some wells were drilled in the Cook Inlet and Yakataga areas in the 1920's and 1930's.  Public lands across Alaska were put off limits for commercial uses for World War II and this ended all commercial oil exploration during the 1940's. However, with the repeal of some wartime measures, companies were again drilling in the Cook Inlet area by 1957 and sunk over 100 wells without finding commercial reserves.[28]

Oil for a new State of Alaska

In July 1957, the modern oil industry in Alaska began with a major strike on the Kenai Peninsula by Atlantic Richfield's (ARCO's) predecessor, Richfield Oil Corporation of Los Angeles.  Interior Secretary Seaton had granted a special 70,000 acre (28,000 ha) lease to Richfield and minor partners Union Oil and Ohio Oil Company (now Marathon Oil) to drill in the heart of the Kenai National Moose Range.[29]

The Moose Range had been established in 1941 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Although the Range was closed to homesteading, the Executive Order did not prohibit oil leasing but left that subject to the approval of the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in the Interior Department.  At this time, there was no "organic act" governing the refuge system, nor were there standards to determine the compatibility of non‑wildlife uses of refuges, as there are today.  Any such leasing was supposed to be on a first come, first served basis.[30]

In 1953, Dwight Eisenhower's first U.S. Interior Secretary, Mr. McKay ostensibly suspended all oil and gas leasing on Department of the Interior lands, including the Kenai Moose Range.  This step set the stage for special backroom deals for Richfield Oil and a select group of Anchorage business boosters who lobbied to open the Kenai National Moose Range to development.  One of McKay's first actions as Secretary had been to convince Congress to give title to federal offshore lands along the coasts to the states, an action called by the New York Times as "one of the greatest and surely the most unjust giveaway programs in all the history of the United States."[31]  By 1956, Secretary McKay had curried so much favor with the oil companies at the cost of America's public lands he was forced to resign, but not before issuing leases to Richfield in the Kenai Moose Range in 1954 and 1955, at odds with his own moratorium.[32]

In the 1950's, regulations restricted an oil company from holding more than 100,000 acres (40,500 ha) in leases. Therefore, Richfield (now Atlantic Richfield/ARCO) found Alaskans to apply for acreage in the Moose Range adjacent to its early leases. The president of Anchorage's largest bank, the editor and publisher of the largest newspaper, and the owner of the largest hotel all made millions off the investment. "The men had gotten the leases by colluding with Richfield in an inside, apparently risk‑free deal. Richfield told them what areas to lease, promised to buy the leases later, and may even have provided the money for their investment," according to a major investigative report done by the Anchorage Daily News."[33]   Most homesteaders who waited in line when a public lease sale happened in 1958 received nothing.

The battle over opening the Moose Range to oil development got wrapped up in Alaska's battle to achieve statehood in 1959, as oil from the Kenai was touted as providing funding for the state when Federal Territorial monies would be reduced.  The National Wildlife Federation and sportsmen's groups fought regulations allowing leasing because of "potential damage to the moose population, the dubious legality of the leases, the availability of alternative areas for mineral exploitation outside wildlife refuges, and the danger of setting a precedent inconsistent with the original purpose of the range.[34]

In 1958, half the Moose Range was opened to leasing, and Richfield Oil controlled Alaska's first major oil field. Congress was incensed that lease rents and royalties in Alaska were only half the rate for the rest of the country, and passed a bill to double them -- but provided a grandfather clause for existing leases, including Richfield's on the Kenai.  The oil company and Alaska territorial officials claimed the lower rates and lack of competitive bids were an incentive for exploration.  However, a Senator from New Mexico wanted to know why "we have thrown away millions of dollars... why do we have to give this away, just because some oil companies have gone up and squatted on it?”[35]

Kenai Oil Fields Start Pumping

Richfield Oil's Swanson River oil field started producing oil in 1961 (see Map 2).  The Kenai gas field was discovered in 1959 and a pipeline across the Moose Range to carry natural gas to Anchorage was completed in 1961.  The oil reserves of the Swanson field slowed to a trickle by 1994 and at that time, extraction of natural gas began.[36]  Over the past 30 years, habitat loss and fragmentation in what is now the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge has continued and major contamination problems have been detected.  An explosion of gas‑injection facility in 1972 sprayed out PCB laden fluids which contaminated the soils.[37]  Although these were deposited in a waste site, in 1983 and 1984 the toxic soil was used to control dust on roads throughout the Kenai Refuge.  The contamination was discovered in 1985 and clean‑up did not begin until 1990. More than 107,686 tons (109,408 tonnes) of PCB contaminated soil had been removed and incinerated at a cost of US$45 million by 1990.[38]

Furthermore, in 1991, an Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation report documenting 150 contaminated sites on the Kenai Peninsula showed that the largest concentration was located within the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge.  The report indicated this pollution was caused by operations in the Swanson River oil field.[39]  Other impacts of oil development on the Kenai Peninsula were reported by the General Accounting Office in a 1982 study which found that trees felled for seismic lines may have spurred the spruce bark beetle infestation in this region and also documented oil pollution in streams of the Kenai Wildlife Refuge.[40]

Natural Gas and Oil Frenzy in Cook Inlet

The first offshore lease sale by the state of Alaska was held in Cook Inlet in 1959.  After discovery of the Sterling gas field and others, development spread with a frenzy in Cook Inlet


and the adjacent Kenai Peninsula (see Map 2). The first offshore field began production in 1961.  Not long thereafter, a gas blowout at the discovery well of a north inlet field caused a platform fire that burned out of control for 14 months in state waters.  Over the next decade, chronic spills, dumping of oily ballast water, and major accidents were common,[41] (see "Industry Experience ‑-Cook Inlet, Alaska").

Between 1962 and 1965, the Middle Ground Shoal, North Inlet gas field, Granite Point, Trading Bay, McArthur oil fields and Beaver Creek and Beluga River gas fields were discovered in Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula.  Thirteen platforms were constructed in Cook Inlet to bring many fields into production from 1965‑1968.[42]  Chevron opened an oil refinery in Nikiski in 1963 and nearby, the Tesoro refinery began producing diesel, gasoline, and jet fuel in 1969.  In 1969, Unocal started up its Nikiski fertilizer (ammonia‑urea) plant which by 1990 was found to be among the top 100 polluters in the U.S., having released 13 million pounds (5900 tonnes) of chemicals (mostly ammonia) to the air.[43]

A second wave of exploration resulted in discovery of the West McArthur River and Sunfish gas fields in 1991. A new pipeline from the West McArthur River field came to shore at the Trading Bay Production Facility in 1994, a year after production began.  Although crude oil production peaked in Cook Inlet and Kenai fields in 1970, natural gas production continues to increase.  By 1996, Cook Inlet fields have produced 1.2 billion barrels of oil and 5.1 trillion cubic feet (144 billion cubic meters) of natural gas.[44]  Since 1962, there have been 546 oil and gas wells drilled in Cook Inlet.[45] Today, there are 15 offshore oil and gas platforms in Cook Inlet operated by Unocal, Phillips, Shell Western, and Marathon and three onshore separation plants in support of the offshore production.[46]

Environmental Neglect in Cook Inlet

Over the past 35 years, the oil industry has demonstrated a pattern of environmental neglect by polluting the waters of Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula.  The 18 oil and gas facilities in upper Cook Inlet operate under one general permit applicable to discharges of wastes from all the platforms and processing plants.  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued this National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit pursuant to regulations under the Clean Water Act in 1986.  Since then, billions of gallons of drilling wastes were dumped into Cook Inlet, including 7.5 billion gallons (28.4 billion liters) of produced waters containing an estimated 179,600 gallons (680,000 liters) of crude oil, and over 31.5 million gallons 119.2 million liters) of drilling muds, cuttings, and other wastes.[47]

The oil and gas companies chronically violated the terms of the permit thousands of times.  A systematic review of State and Federal records from 1986 to 1992 by Trustees for Alaska found over 3,067 violations of the NPDES permit conditions.[48]  On February 16, 1995, the EPA filed complaints against Union Oil Company of California (Unocal), Marathon Oil Company, and Shell Western E & P, and said that it intended to fine them up to US$15 million for 827 separate Clean Water Act violations.  EPA suspected that some of the discharges contained benzene, a carcinogen which could harm the Cook Inlet environment. On February 27, 1995 Greenpeace,


Trustees for Alaska, and the Alaska Center for the Environment filed a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against the three oil companies over hundreds of instances of illegal dumping. Later in 1995, the three oil companies agreed to pay over US$1.1 million in civil penalties and payments to support the Cook Inlet Keeper, a group devoted to protection of the inlet, in court settlements agreed to by EPA and the conservation organizations.[49]

The refineries have also been major polluters.  The Tesoro Refinery leaked 750,000 gallons (2.8 million liters) of fuel into the groundwater.  The underground lake of fuel, two to five feet deep floating over about a four‑acre area, was discovered in 1987, but it took the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation until 1991 to negotiate a fine of $500,000 from Tesoro Alaska Petroleum Company,[50]  and groundwater pollution persists in 1997.  In 1993, EPA imposed a $550,000 fine on Tesoro for hazardous waste violations at the refinery.[51]  In 1992 and 1993, the Tesoro refinery was found to violate its air quality permit by releasing excess amounts of sulphur dioxide 23 times.[52]  Unocal's Nikiski fertilizer plant has also heavily polluted the Cook Inlet airshed.  In 1992, according to Toxic Release Inventory data required to be submitted to the EPA, Unocal spewed more pollution into the air than any other facility in Alaska, Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. In 1994, the EPA issued Unocal a Notice of Violation alleging that Unocal had modified its facility so as to significantly increase its air pollution; this change should have triggered an EPA air quality review under the Clean Air Act which requires the facility to use the best available technology for its modifications.[53]  The Tesoro refinery and Unocal Chemicals Plant, alone, contributed over 5.1 million pounds (2.3 million kg) of pollutants into the environment in 1993, according to EPA's Toxics Release Inventory.[54]


INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE ‑ COOK INLET, ALASKA

1962-63                            ·   Gas blowout at discovery well of north Cook Inlet field resulted in platform fire that burned out of control for 14 months in State waters.[55]

1965                                     ·   US Army Corps of Engineers reported oil slicks in December.

1966‑68                   ·  12 pipeline breaks spilled more than 42,000 gallons (159,000 liters) of oil.[56]

                                 ·   Persistent complaints from commercial fishermen about oil damage to equipment.[57]

                                 ·   "Significant amount" of oil found on Cook Inlet waters 19 percent of the time.[58]

1967                        ·    Oily ballast water from tankers or ships killed 1800‑2000 sea ducks and other birds in Cook Inlet.[59]

·   75 pollution incidents were reported by state and federal officials to Interior Secretary Udall in first three months of the year.[60]

1968                         ·   26 spills recorded from Cook Inlet production platforms.[61]

                                 ·   Arrest of Atlantic Richfield tanker captain for dumping oily ballast in Cook Inlet.[62]

·   Tanker ruptured at Drift River terminal and spilled 71,400 gallons (270,300 liters) of crude in a 1,000 square mile (2590 square km) slick across Cook Inlet. Guillemots, murres and 250‑350

                                 ducks found covered with oil.[63]

1970                        ·   Peak of Cook Inlet oil production.[64]  Oily ballast water from Cook Inlet tankers suspected to have killed 100,000 birds found near Kodiak Island.[65]

1977                         ·   Drill rig sank in Kachemak Bay during move for repairs and fuel spilled from its tanks.[66]

·   Military tanker Sealift Pacific ran aground at Nikiski and spilled 200,000 gallons (757,000 liters) of jet fuel.[67]

1985                       ·   Gas blowout at Grayling platform shutdown production.[68]

1987                       ·   Tanker Glacier Bay struck rock on July 2, spilling 56,700‑159,600 gal. (214,600‑605,150 liters).  North Slope crude into Cook Inlet near Kenai River. Coast Guard took over cleanup after 6 days due to poor industry response.[69]

1987‑88                  ·   Gas blowout at Steelhead platform occurred while drilling oil production well in December 1987.  Fire burned for a week. While drilling relief well, another blowout occurred June 1988. Relief well completed in August 1988.[70]

                                                                                                                      

1988                       ·    Tanker punctured while loading at Nikiski dock.[71]

1989                       ·    Frozen valve on Amoco's drill platform "Anne caused spill of 21,840 gallons (82,673 liters)

                               crude, January 1989.  Cleanup was not attempted due to 80‑90% moving ice floes in Cook Inlet.[72]

1990                       ·    Worker left a storage tank valve open overnight at Drift River Terminal causing spill of 90,000 gallons (340,700 liters) crude oil that remained within containment dike.[73]

·   Drift River oil terminal hit by massive mudslide from eruption of Mount Redoubt on Jan. 2.

                               Floods breached dikes and knocked out generators so that the terminal was shut down and

                               workers evacuated.  The State ordered 38 million gallons (144 million liters) of oil in storage

                               tanks drained to avoid a major spill, but this increased the danger of ice‑caused tanker spills by

                               increasing the time to fill each tanker from 14 hours to 8 days.  10 of 15 Cook Inlet platforms

                               shut down.[74]

·    Unocal tanker Coast Range knocked from moorings by ice at Drift River terminal on December 17 caused spill of 630 gallons (2,380 liters) oil in Cook Inlet and 1,680 gallons (6,360 liters) from loading pipeline. Had the tanker been loading oil, the spill would have been much worse.[75]

·    Unocal Corp. fertilizer plant along the shores of Cook Wet at Nikiski found to be among the top 100 polluters in the U.S., having released 13 million pounds (5.9 million kg) of chemicals (mostly ammonia) to the air.[76]

1992                       ·   A refinery pipeline break at Kenai terminal owned by ARCO and Chevron spilled 47,000 gals.

                               (177,900 liters) of North Slope crude oil/water mix into Cook Inlet Frozen water in tank

                               prevented helicopter spray of dispersants; only 2400 gallons (9,085 liters) oil were recovered.

                               $90,000 fine paid in a settlement with the State.[77]


Early North Slope Exploration

Exploration began on the North Slope in the 23 million‑acre (9.43 million ha) Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 declared by President Harding in 1923 (Map 3).  This area, now known as the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska (NPRA) is the largest block of federal land in Alaska.  From the crest of the Brooks Range north to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas, it encompasses a vast area of rolling foothills, wild rivers, and extensive coastal plain wetlands which provide significant habitats for waterfowl, caribou, Arctic peregrine falcons, beluga whales, and other wildlife.[78]

From 1944 to 1953, the US Navy and US Geological Survey spent US$50‑60 million in exploration[79] and drilled 45 shallow core test wells and 36 test wells.  Further Naval exploration

 
was spurred by the OPEC embargo from 1972‑77 and 7 tests wells were drilled by Husky Oil in a government‑run program at a cost of US$500 million.[80]  The Umiat field was discovered in 1946, and at 70 million barrels remains the largest known field in the petroleum reserve.  Out of about 42 exploratory wells drilled, 8 indicated recoverable quantities of oil may be found.  The Barrow Gas fields went into first production to supply the Naval Arctic Research Lab and Federal facilities in 1949.  In 1962, Congress authorized the US Navy to supply natural gas to local residents of Barrow and fuel was sold to the community beginning in 1966.  In 1984, the Congress turned over ownership of the three Barrow gas fields to the North Slope Borough and 3 Native corporations.[81]

In 1976, with the passage of the Naval Petroleum Reserve Production Act, Congress transferred management of the area to the Department of the Interior, and re‑named it the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska (NPRA).  Under the provisions of the 1976 Act, oil development in the area was prohibited except by act of Congress and it mandated a government‑sponsored exploration program and extensive studies of wildlife and other land values.  However, the NPRA was opened to expedited oil company leasing and development in 1980 through a rider attached by Alaska's Senator Ted Stevens to the Interior Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1981.  This Act provided that 50% of the royalties from any oil extracted from the reserve would go to the State of Alaska.

Major lease sales were conducted by the Bureau of Land Management in the NPRA during the early 1980's and, six multinational companies obtained most of the leases: ARCO, Texaco, British Petroleum, Chevron, Shell, and Exxon.[82]  Those earlier leases have all expired.  Today there are no active leases in the NPRA, but great pressure for more leasing comes from ARCO and Alaska's Governor Tony Knowles.[83]  The US Interior Department began planning in January 1997 for new lease sales in the NPRA.[84]

The NPRA remains withdrawn from hard rock, coal, and other mineral development. However, if roads are built into NPRA for oil and gas extraction, the chances greatly increase that major reserves of bituminous and sub‑bituminous coal located across the mid‑zone of NPRA (a zone midway from the coast to the Brooks Range) would be stripped out, thereby exacerbating the cumulative effects of oil and gas development.  The Bureau of Land Management estimates that on the order of 40% of all coal remaining in the U.S. (400 billion to 4 trillion tons, 406 billion to 4.1 trillion tonnes) may underlie 30,000 square miles (77,700 square km) of the reserve.[85]

Opening up the North Slope to oil companies

In 1960, the US Interior Department opened up 20 million acres of the central North Slope for state land selections by ending the Federal restrictions that set this area aside for military use during World War II.  The State rapidly offered oil leases to multinational companies, including in the area known as Prudhoe Bay, now one of the most industrialized areas of the North American arctic.

At the same time as the entire area between the Canning and Colville Rivers along the central


Beaufort Sea coast was made available for oil leasing by the Interior Department, the Arctic National Wildlife Range was established by President Eisenhower for the protection of wilderness and wildlife.[86]  This area was later enlarged, its name changed to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and Congress designated the entire original range as wilderness‑ except the 1.5 million acre (61 0,000ha) coastal plain which is the biological heart of the refuge but also exactly where the oil companies want to drill (see Map 3).

Atlantic Richfield's major oil discovery in 1968 and the proposal for a Trans‑Alaska Pipeline by Atlantic Richfield (now ARCO), British Petroleum, and Humble Oil (now Exxon) set in motion the radical transformation of the landscape across much of Northern Alaska. Graffiti scrawled on the pipeline in the late 1970's asked the question in the minds of many: "Where will it all end?"

The Trans‑Alaska Pipeline Controversy

Three multinational oil corporations with the biggest stake in the Prudhoe Bay oil fields are also the primary owners of Alyeska Pipeline Service Company that runs the pipeline, pumping stations, and marine tanker terminal (British Petroleum (50%), ARCO (21.3%), Exxon (20.3%) with the remaining 8% held by other 4 oil companies: Amerada Hess (1.5%), Mobil (4. 1 %), Phillips (1.4%), and Unocal (1.4%).[87]

British Petroleum, ARCO, and Exxon want the public to look at the pipeline in isolation from other parts of their oil transportation system today, just as they did back in the 1970's.  But the tankers, the oil extraction across the Arctic, the pipeline snaking across the state are all integral parts of the machinery taking oil out of Alaska.

Looking back, conservationists raised major concerns during the 1970's Trans‑Alaska Pipeline debate which have since been shown to be accurate.  They defined their concerns as the loss of the vast Arctic wilderness, the danger of tanker spills in Prince William Sound, and the failure to consider other alternatives.  Conservationists sought better consideration of alternatives which could have avoided having a tanker terminal at all, and a real national energy policy which would have reduced our nation's reliance on foreign oil through energy conservation and alternatives like solar energy.[88]

But before the pipeline could be built, certain thresholds had to be overcome: passage of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (because Native Alaskans claimed lands the Trans­Alaska Pipeline would traverse and the Prudhoe Bay oil fields), completion of the first major environmental impact statement (necessary under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 by the Department of the Interior), and a raging national debate over the future of the Arctic wilderness.  After long Congressional debate, Vice‑President Spiro T. Agnew performed one of his last official acts to break a tie vote on passage of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act in 1973.  Pipeline construction began in 1974 and the first oil was loaded into the supertanker ARCO Juneau in 1977.

Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System Destroyed Wilderness

The Alaskan wilderness has been forever changed by the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System and extraction of crude oil on the North Slope.  The remote Arctic wilderness has been transformed into an industrial zone with oil drilling, pipelines, roads, gravel mines, and noisy turbines sprawling over 800 square miles (2,072 square km).

The Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989 creating the USA's largest oil spill.  During the 1970's debate over the pipeline, conservationists -‑ and fisherman, geologists, Alaska citizens, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Commerce Department -‑ were concerned that the marine transportation part of the pipeline system was being ignored, despite the grave risks. Geologists predicted that icebergs would increasingly calve off the great glaciers around Prince William Sound in the future.[89]  Someday, a tanker would run aground causing a disastrous oil spill.  On both counts, scientific experts and environmentalists were proven to be right.

Even today, the oil spill contingency plans for the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System are inadequate.[90] Furthermore, North Slope crude has fouled coasts south of Alaska.  Over 2.8 million gallons (10.6 million liters) of North Slope crude oil spilled from tankers, pipelines, and barges along coasts of Washington, Oregon, California, and Hawaii from 1985 to 199l.[91]  Meanwhile, the U.S. still does not have a far‑sighted national energy strategy that breaks dependence on oil.

Inadequate quality assurance plans by Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., the consortium of oil companies which operates the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline, plagued the pipeline during construction. Now, as the pipeline ages, this continued deficiency has resulted in increased dangers, including the possibility of fires or spills in the event of a major earthquake.[92]

After the Exxon Valdez oil spill, Congressional oversight hearings led to increased scrutiny of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline by the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Congressman John Dingell said in a hearing on July 14, 1993,

"This hearing is the quintessential rerun.   On June 21, 1976, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power held a similar hearing with Alyeska concerning the collapse of the quality assurance/quality control system during the construction of the pipeline.  At that hearing, we discussed thousands of faked X‑rays of welds, intimidation and harassment of inspectors, including death threats, section of the pipeline ripping open during pressure tests, and sections of the pipeline floating to the surface of rivers.  We learned of a total collapse of the Alyeska inspection system and the total absence of Federal government oversight...  The only modicum of improvement we can see since our earlier hearing is that during 1975‑76, inspectors received death threats, bullet holes in the windshields of their trucks, and one inspector had his truck crushed by a section of48‑inch pipe when it inexplicably rolled down an embankment.  In 1992, by contrast, an Alyeska official only threatened to break the arms of an inspector if he wrote another non‑conformance report.[93]

"It's a mess up there," said Owen Thero, President of Quality Technology Company, the firm which conducted the audit of Alyeska for BLM, at the 1993 hearing.  Six whistleblowers testified they had been reporting electrical problems since 1990.[94]  The 300‑page audit prepared for the BLM found:[95]

q       Equipment necessary for safe operation and shutdown of the pipeline may fail during not‑ uncommon earthquake events.

q       Massive violations of the National Electrical Code exist.

q       Quality assurance and control programs do not function as required.

q       The safety margins of essential systems have not been maintained and their status is indeterminate at best.

Alyeska followed up with its own major inspection which found 5000 deficiencies of the National Electrical Code at Pump Station 8, alone, and 20,000 at the Valdez Marine Terminal.  Due to the massive problems, Alyeska sought to use instead the Alaska electrical codes, and even so, 48,110 items failed this weaker code's requirements.[96]  In recent years, the pipeline shutdown rate has grown to four times the normal rate.  During 1994 and 1995, rate of potentially serious incidents (crude oil spills, fire, loss of leak detection systems, leaks in vapor recovery system at the Valdez terminal causing shutdown of pipeline or pump stations) jumped to once every 10 days.[97]


EXXON VALDEZ DAMAGE PERSISTS

Crude oil from the Exxon Valdez spill fouled 1,500 miles (2,400 km) of beaches and struck designated wilderness areas.  Three national parks (Katmai National Park and Preserve, Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve, and Kenai Fiords National Park), four national wildlife refuges (Kodiak, Becharof, Alaska Peninsula, and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuges) and spectacular shorelines in Chugach National Forest were damaged.

The Exxon Valdez spill killed more wildlife than any other spill worldwide‑- and ten times as many birds as any other U.S. spill.[98]   The exact loss will never be known, but at least 250,000 birds, 300 harbor seals, 2,800 sea otters and possibly 13 killer whales died.[99]   Human communities also suffered. In the spill area, subsistence harvests declined substantially and even today, some villagers are not certain their traditional foods are safe.[100]   Furthermore, occupational exposures to oil mist harmed cleanup workers who were exposed to 12 times the amount allowed under National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health standards.[101]

Most wildlife populations still show little or no sign of recovery eight years after the spill, according to the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council.[102]  Sea otters, harbor seals, killer whales, Pacific herring, marbled murrelets, harlequin ducks, pigeon guillemots, and 3 species of cormorants still have not recovered.[103]


Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System ‑ Two decades of trouble


Twenty years ago, oil started flowing through the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System.  On June 20, 1977 crude oil surged from the Prudhoe Bay oil fields.  It snaked its way 800‑miles (1,290 km) south across Alaska, traversing 600 rivers, three mountain ranges, and three seismic zones (Map 3). Normally the oil moves about 6 miles per hour, and should arrive 6 days later at the Valdez terminal in Prince William Sound.

The pipeline shutdown first on July 4, 1977 due to a ruptured pipeline; the next day, human error caused a fire and explosion at Pump Station 8 on July 5, killing one worker and injuring five.  This halted flow for 10 days before a by‑pass pipeline could be built.  Next, a bulldozer crashed into a pipeline valve on the North Slope on July 19, spraying 80,000 gallons (302,800 liters) of crude oil and soaking the tundra.  About this time, a saboteur caused a pipeline explosion that tore up the insulation, dented the pipeline, and damaged 60 feet (18 m) of pipeline supports-‑ and it was several days before anyone noticed, despite promises of constant safety surveillance.  On August 1, 1977, the first tanker, the ARCO Juneau, left Valdez Alaska loaded full of crude oil.[104]

From 1974 to 1977, 12 pump stations, 29 construction camps, 14 air strips, dozens of gravel mines, the haul road north of the Yukon River, work pad along the pipeline (a service road), and other access roads were built.[105]

During construction of the pipeline, more than 31,403 acres (12,708 ha) of terrestrial wildlife habitat were lost, with a third of this on the North Slope (this does not include the damage caused by the "Hickel Highway" winter road or the Prudhoe Bay oil fields).  Gravel mines damaged more wildlife habitat than any other construction activity and covered twice as much acreage as had been predicted.[106]  Alyeska excavated 73 million cubic yards (55.8 cubic meters) of gravel to build the road and pipeline work pad.  Most of this habitat destruction, from the Haul Road, pipeline work pad, and many of the access roads is permanent.[107]  Ten to twelve years after abandonment, the upland gravel mines sites and workpads on the North Slope remained largely unvegetated despite early seeding efforts.[108]  Revegetation efforts with shrubs in the riparian habitat preferred by moose were ineffective.[109]

During construction and initial operation of the pipeline, roughly 16,000 spills of 700,000 gallons (2.65 million liters) of petroleum hydrocarbons occurred.[110]  In 1975, 60,000 gallons (227,000 liter) spilled at the Galbraith Lake pipeline camp and the contamination persisted until clean up in 1995.[111]  Alyeska Pipeline's records show 642 spills totaling 1.2 million gallons (4.5 million liters) since operations began in 1977[112] ‑- without taking into account the Exxon Valdez or other tanker spills along the west coast tanker route.

The Trans‑Alaska Pipeline set into motion the development of the Prudhoe Bay oil field which caused abandonment of some caribou calving areas and disruption of their movements.[113] Although caribou numbers in the Central Arctic Herd have generally increased, as have populations throughout the Arctic, this regional trend has masked harmful changes.  Long‑term


displacement and declines in calving are now occurring even in the newer Kupanik and Milne Point oil fields.[114]  The Central Arctic Herd has been split by the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline into two groups.  A sharp decline (23%) in the Central Arctic herd population was discovered by 1995 surveys.[115]  These studies found that all of the decline occurred in the caribou's range in the vicinity of oil development infrastructure, with 41% declines found in the Kuparuk oil field vicinity.  The herd is increasing where it uses range to the east of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline where there is no oil development yet.

Concerns raised by scientists and conservationists in the 1970's resulted in major changes to the project design which prevented the hot oil pipeline from being buried in the permafrost where it could have melted the ground out from under it and caused breaks in the pipeline.  Although the elevated pipeline design, pushed by conservationists, reduced the harm, the cumulative effects of the Prudhoe Bay oil field and the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline caused displacement of caribou from preferred calving areas and reduced reproductive success.  These problems continue to increase as new roads and pipelines expand across the North Slope. In the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the Porcupine Caribou Herd which is much larger than the herd in the Prudhoe Bay area, has a more concentrated birthplace and nursery area which would be even more vulnerable to harm from a major industrial complex right in its heart should that occur.[116]

In 1970, British Petroleum promised, "When BP Alaska touches the wilderness, we try to touch it gently."[117]  Today, British Petroleum touts the "greatest strides" in building the latest oil fields citing great technological improvements from those early days of Prudhoe Bay.[118]

The reality is that even their newest oil fields, such as the Endicott offshore development, have caused significant problems.  Some impacts are not visible to the naked eye, such as significant cumulative effects of offshore gravel causeways to nearshore fish habitat.[119]  Other problems are intentionally hidden from view, such as improper waste disposal by drilling contractors to British Petroleum over a two to five‑year period.  A contractor at the Endicott oil field instructed its workers to violate environmental regulations by dumping toxic materials into drilling wastes that were routinely re‑injected.  The Environmental Protection Agency's criminal investigation is ongoing.[120]

A massive expansion in the construction of new oil fields is now taking place on the North Slope. Today, ARCO and British Petroleum are touting the "technological advances" of bored hole pipelines buried in the permafrost beneath rivers, oil fields built without connecting roads (though it is unknown how long this would last), and re‑injection of drilling wastes underground.[121]  If such developments are allowed to go ahead, time will tell the full consequences of these promised improvements. For example, thawed soils may provide a migration pathway for injected toxic wastes[122] which could become more of a concern with increased melting of the permafrost due to global climate change.[123]  Meanwhile, hundreds of old exploratory drilling sites and toxic waste pits have yet to be closed out and rehabilitated and dozens of contaminated sites are scattered across the North Slope.[124]  No matter how well done, oil drilling in the Arctic is irreversibly destroying the wilderness.

Arctic Waters for Sale

Alaska has more miles of coastline than all the coasts of the contiguous 48 states of the U.S. combined.  Nearly all offshore waters along Alaska’s 6,640 miles (10,624 km) of coast are open to oil and gas leasing -‑ within three miles (4.8 km) of shore by the State of Alaska and seaward of that, by the Minerals Management Service (MMS), an agency of the US Department of the Interior Department, in the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) program.[125]

The rich fishing grounds of Bristol Bay in the Bering Sea and Kachemak Bay State Wilderness Park are the only Alaskan offshore areas where offshore oil and gas activity is prohibited by law.[126]  In 1989, a congressional moratorium was put in place for Federal waters in Bristol Bay after MMS held a sale which had been bitterly opposed by fisherman and the State, and in 1995 oil companies relinquished their leases.[127]  However, Conoco, Inc, Amerada Hess Corporation and other companies sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and won their claims of breach of contract for which financial damage resolution is pending.[128]

Nearly all coastal lands bordering the 1,400 mile (2,250 km) Beaufort and Chukchi sea coasts, held by the State of Alaska, Native regional corporations and the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) may be leased.[129]  Only 2% of the U.S. shoreline north of the Arctic Circle, 30 miles within the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (located east of the Aichilik River to the Canadian border in the northeast comer of the state) has permanent protection as wilderness. Meanwhile, Congress debates the fate of another 100 miles (161 Ian) of shoreline in the refuge which it precariously held off limits to oil development.

State leasing within 3 miles of the shore. The State of Alaska initiated leasing of its offshore waters with a Cook Inlet sale in 1959; by 1964 it had leased areas in the Beaufort Sea in consort with vast onshore areas of the North Slope.  In 1979, Alaska held its first major Beaufort Sea sale jointly with the Federal government.  Thus far, State sales have primarily taken place in these regions. Since opening the Prudhoe Bay vicinity to the oil industry, the State has offered over 7 million acres (2.8 million ha) of Beaufort Sea waters from the Canadian border almost to Barrow.[130]  The State has planned a. lease sale for the central Beaufort Sea late in 1997, and plans to offer all its North Slope area and Beaufort Sea waters from the Canadian border to Barrow in area‑wide lease sales beginning in 1999.[131]  The State plans massive area‑wide lease sales for virtually the entire upper Cook Inlet watershed beginning in 1999[132] (see Map 3 for State Beaufort Sea/North Slope and Cook Inlet proposed lease areas).

Of 78 State lease sales held in Alaska since 1959, only 5 were offered in other areas outside Cook Inlet and the North Slope and adjacent Beaufort Sea.[133]  The State has offered 29.8 million acres (12.1 million ha) of onshore and offshore lands to oil companies from 1959 to 1996.[134]  Of the lands offered, oil companies leased 40% (12 million acres, 4.9 million ha).  By the beginning of 1997, oil corporations owned leases for 2,680,846 acres (1,085,742 ha) of State lands and waters of which 66% were onshore (1,759,423 acres; 712,566 ha) and 34% were offshore (921,423 acres; 373,176 ha).[135]  As of May 1997, following another sale in Cook Inlet and the Kenai Peninsula, oil companies held 2.93 million acres (1.2 million ha) of State leases.[136]

Massive Federal OCS program.  In 1974, President Nixon established the Federal OCS program in Alaska, for oil and gas leasing in areas beyond the State's 3‑mile limit, contrary to the Council on Environmental Quality's recommendations.[137]  Then, as now, scientists declared knowledge inadequate for assessing the consequences of OCS development on the Alaskan environment, and found the risks of harm to the coastal environment and communities extremely high.[138]

The federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) program in Alaska [administered by the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS)] covers 1.3 billion acres (526 million ha).  Planning is currently underway in areas containing 241 million acres (97 million ha), more than half the entire US OCS area evaluated for leasing (Map 3).  The current Minerals Management Service (MMS) Five‑Year Plan (1997‑2002) calls for 16 lease sales in 8 OCS planning areas located in the Gulf of Mexico and in Alaska.  Leases covering 8.9 million acres (23.8 million ha) are proposed for 5 of the planning areas in Alaska: Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Hope Basin, Cook Inlet and Gulf of Alaska.[139]

Throughout Alaska, 106 million acres (42.9 million ha) have been offered in Federal OCS lease sales since 1976 and leases over 8 million acres (3.2 million ha) have actually been sold.  The Beaufort and Chukchi Seas comprise over half the OCS in Alaska.  Arctic Federal OCS sale offerings grew exponentially until a peak in 1991; from 173,423 acres (70,23 6 ha) offered in 1979 to 37,544,952 acres (15,205,795 ha) in two lease sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas in 1991 (Table 1).[140]


TABLE 1. Arctic Ocean Federal OCS Lease Sales

Sale Date and Area                                                      Size (acres)                 Size (hectares)

Beaufort Sea:

Dec. 1979    (Joint Federal/State sale)                                     73,423                        70,184

Oct. 1982     (Sale 71)                                                        1,825,770                       738,889

Aug. 1984    (Sale 87)                                                        7,773,447                       313,014

Mar. 1988    (Sale 97)                                                      18,277,806                    7,397,028

Jun. 1991     (Sale 124)                                                     18,556,976                    7,510,008

Sep. 1996     (Sale 144)                                                      7,279,700                    2,946,094

1998            (Sale 170‑ proposed)                                       1,700,000                       687,990

2000            (proposed)                                                    12,200,000                    4,900,000

Chukchi Sea:

Prior to 1988                                                                           62,587                          25,329

Mar. 1988      (Sale 109)                                                    25,631,122                    10,372,915

Aug. 1991      (Sale 126)                                                    18,987,976                     7,684,434

2002              (Sale 148 ‑ proposed)                                    26,000,000                     1,052,220


Beaufort Sea.  Over 3 million acres (1.2 million ha) have actually been leased in five Beaufort Sea Federal OCS lease sales.  A total of 28 exploratory wells have been drilled in the Beaufort Sea and 4 in the Chukchi Sea.[141]  MMS has issued 660 leases in the Beaufort Sea, of which 78 are currently active and cover 317,682 acres (128,661 ha).[142]   The most recent Beaufort Sea lease sale was Sale 144, held September 18, 1996, offered 7.3 million acres (3 million ha).  Five companies (ARCO Alaska Inc., British Petroleum Exploration (Alaska) Inc., Chevron USA, Petrofina Delaware, Inc. and Anadarko Petroleum Corp.) paid $14,429,363 for leases covering 99,983 acres (40,493 ha).  The area east of Barter Island was not offered at the request of the State of Alaska, the North Slope Borough, and the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission.[143]

The most recent Federal OCS 5‑year plan shows a planning area across the entire Beaufort Sea area from just east of Barrow to the Canadian border, with a large lease sale in the year 2000.[144]  The proposed Sale 170 to be held in 1998 covers the area between Camden Bay (off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) and Oliktok Point (north of the Kuparuk oil field area) for Sale 170. The draft environmental impact statement proposes 1.7 million acres (.7 million ha) for leasing.[145]

Chukchi Sea.  The first massive Federal OCS lease sale in the Chukchi Sea launched a flurry of exploratory drilling in this rich marine ecosystem between 1989 and 1991.  This activity was subsidized by the U.S. government since the MMS dropped the minimum bid for lease blocks from $150 per acre to $25 per acre in 1987.  MMS leased a record 1.9 million acres (770,000 ha) in the first Chukchi Sea sale.  Another huge lease sale is proposed for the Chukchi Sea and Hope Basin in MMS's 5‑year plan, and the environmental review process has been started.  However, lease sales for 26 million acres (10. 5 million ha) in the Chukchi Sea and for 7.2 million acres (2.9 million ha) in the Gulf of Alaska are stalled due to lack of industry interest, according to the MMS Alaska Regional Director.[146]

In 1994, the MMS proposed a joint sale with Russia for the Chukchi Sea and Hope Basin.  This evolved from an agreement signed by U.S. Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt and Vladislav Scherbakov of the Committee of the Russian Federation on Geology and Use of Mineral Resources.  Already, funds from the Agency for International Development (AID) were being used by the MMS Alaska office to train Russians in oil resource evaluation and share "technical expertise."[147]

The proposed joint Russian/ U.S. OCS sale would have encompassed icy waters used by the international population of endangered bowhead whales which migrate from their Canadian Beaufort Sea calving grounds across the Beaufort Sea to the Russian coast.  In Russia, the lease sale area in the Chukchi Sea bordered Wrangel Island Nature Reserve which contains among the largest concentrations of polar bear dens in the world.  The plan was dropped due to pressure from conservationists and Alaska Native organizations ranging from the Alaska Beluga Whale Committee, Alaska Eskimo Walrus Commission, to Bering Sea Fishermen's Association.[148]

Cook Inlet.  Four Federal OCS lease sales have been held in the Cook Inlet area since 1977 when the first Alaska OCS sale took place.  A sale was canceled in 1986 due to lack of oil industry


interest coinciding with the crash in oil prices, and a 1989 sale was postponed due to the Exxon Valdez oil spill.[149]  After a hiatus of 15 years, the MMS held a controversial lease sale in lower Cook Inlet.  Originally the 3.7 million acre (1.5 million ha) sale area included the Shelikof Strait region containing rich fishing grounds and habitat for the endangered Steller Sea Lion and millions of migratory birds but due to citizen opposition this part of the sale area was deleted.  The MMS environmental impact statement for Sale 149 analyzed 1.98 million acres (.8 million ha) and ultimately 430,000 acres (174,150 ha) were offered for lease.  One company, Forcenergy bought two lease blocks (9,767 acres; 3956 ha) for just $1 over the minimum bid at the MMS sale held July 11, 1997.  The Minerals Management Service announced that another new Cook Inlet sale was delayed until the year 2001, but despite citizen opposition to any sale, they did not cancel it.[150]

History of Controversy.  From the onset, Arctic offshore leasing has been embroiled in controversy and lawsuits.  The first Beaufort Sea sale was contested in State and Federal courts by the North Slope Borough, the village of Kaktovik, and environmental groups.[151]  The next two Federal OCS lease sales in the Beaufort also faced lawsuits since Interior Secretaries Watt and Hodel, respectively, reduced the seasonal drilling restrictions intended to protect bowhead whales.[152]

Only a small percentage of the near‑coastal area, where ecological risks and public concern are highest, have ever been deferred from any Federal Arctic Ocean OCS sale.[153]  Proposed OCS sales in the 1997‑2002 five‑year plan again include millions of acres in Beaufort and Chukchi Sea nearshore waters and the lead zone where open‑water channels in the ice are critical to migrating whales and birds.  MMS also includes acreage off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in Cook Inlet where the public has consistently opposed leasing in the past.

The State's priority of economic interest in oil development over environmental values stems from the values codified in its constitution.  This says, "it is the policy of the State to encourage the settlement of its land and the development of its resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest."  None of the State's vast Arctic waters are off limits to leasing.[154]

Since MMS has not forbidden exploration, development, or production on any Federal OCS leases so far, lease sales are inevitably followed by drilling.  Investment in lease sales, support facilities and pipelines in either State or Federal holdings will encourage development in the other. As production at the Prudhoe Bay oil field declines, industry is seeking new oil fields to extend the usefulness and profitability of the 800‑mile (1,280 km) Trans‑Alaska Pipeline.

Links between onshore and offshore development. Offshore and onshore development are inextricably linked. Infrastructure on land improves the chances that industry may find it profitable to develop offshore.  Nowhere is this more evident than off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

In 1991, President Bush's Secretary of Energy, James Watkins, said that drilling in the Arctic


Refuge would be the first step toward exploiting oil reserves in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. Watkins' National Energy Strategy said that oil production in the Arctic Refuge would "facilitate the development of other North Slope and Beaufort Sea discoveries."[155]  If the Arctic Refuge were opened to onshore development, pipelines and processing facilities for state and federal offshore development would likely follow.

Furthermore, the push for onshore infrastructure to support oil fields that may be discovered in State or Federal waters off the coast is likely to increase pressure to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling.  Onshore infrastructure would be cheaper and involve less use of untested offshore technology such as subsea pipelines.  Once in place, onshore facilities would increase the potential profit margin of offshore development.  For example, British Petroleum considers the Northstar field economically feasible due to its close proximity to Prudhoe Bay. Indeed, opening the Arctic Refuge to development would magnify the likelihood of offshore development occurring in this region.

The State realized that leasing its waters off the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) would "greatly increase the economic potential of Beaufort Sea Sale 50."[156]  In recognition that the oil industry would face logistical and economic difficulties in developing offshore so long as the adjacent refuge was protected from oil development, the State had a policy of deferring lease sales here until after Congress decided the coastal plain's fate.  But in a blatantly political move in 1986, the State reversed long‑standing policy because "leasing in Camden Bay may favorably influence the Congressional decision to lease in ANWR."[157]

In 1987, environmentalists and the village of Kaktovik contested the State's two sales along the Arctic Refuge coast because the state failed to adequately consider the cumulative effects of onshore oil transportation facilities.  The state also neglected analysis of the grave threats to bowhead whales from tankers and other oil shipment methods if the refuge remained closed to the oil industry.  The state forged ahead with the lease sales, but Alaska's Supreme Court did require further analysis of oil transportation for the Camden Bay sale.[158]  In a challenge to the State's Demarcation Bay Sale 55, located off the Arctic Refuge coast east to the Canadian border, the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the Alaska Department of Natural Resources erred due to failure to consider impacts on the Arctic Refuge, including the "internationally significant" Porcupine caribou herd.[159]

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is closed to the oil industry, but the threats of cumulative impacts from offshore leasing increased in 1997 with ARCO's proposed Warthog well in Camden Bay along its coast, and their Camden Bay development unit which includes both State and Federal offshore leases.

Corporate control of the North Slope

Most oil leases in Alaska are owned by a few of the world's largest multinational oil corporations. Three companies own the lion's share of leases in the producing North Slope fields.  ARCO Alaska, Inc. and BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. own more than 50% of all State of Alaska leases, and only 10 companies control 86% of State oil and gas leases (Table 2).


TABLE 2. Top Ten Alaska Oil Leaseholders[160]

ARCO Alaska, Inc.                  862,609 acres (349,012 hectares)

BP Exploration (Alaska)           802,168           (324,557 ha)

Union Oil Co.                           202,353            ( 81,892 ha)

Exxon Corp.                             131,910            ( 53,384 ha)

Chevron USA                           129,800             (52,530 ha)

Phillips Petroleum Co.               126,374             (51,144 ha)

Forcenergy                               126,013             (50,997 ha)

Union Texas Petroleum             90,501               (36,626 ha)

Marathon Oil Co.                     87,782               (35,525 ha)

Anadarko Petroleum                 59,723               (24,170 ha)


The three oil companies owning most State of Alaska leases are also expected to produce 95% of the oil in the next 20 years (Table 3). British Petroleum commands 44% of projected oil, ARCO is expected to produce 31 %, and Exxon is slated to produce 20% of the North Slope's oil.  The remaining 5% of production is expected from leases held by 12 other companies (Amoco, Chevron, Cook Inlet Regional Corporation, Doyon Corporation, Louisiana Land & Exploration, Forcenergy, Mobil, NANA Regional Corporation, Oxy (Occidental Petroleum), Phillips, Texaco, and Unocal).[161]


TABLE 3. Projected Top Ten Oil Producers in Alaska: 1997‑2020

These State estimates are based on production from producing oil fields and known satellites on the North Slope and Cook Inlet.[162]

Corporation                               Total (barrels)              Cook Inlet portion (barrels)

British Petroleum                       2,884,922,000

ARCO                                     2,014,747,000

Exxon                                       1,240,314,000

Unocal                                         136,612,000                          33,860,000

Mobil                                            62,676,000                           4,606,000

Phillips                                           51,582,000

OXY                                             45,797,000

Chevron                                        24,553,000

Forcenergy                                    19,419,000                          17,945,000

Texaco                                          14,369,000



North Slope oil fields -- summary of past and future production.

Prudhoe Bay, Just the Beginning

Prudhoe Bay, the name of a bay in the Beaufort Sea, is now a huge oil field. It is also a term colloquially used to describe all the producing oil fields on the North Slope.

A total of 15 oil fields including the supergiant Prudhoe Bay are currently in production on the North Slope with commercial oil reserves exceeding 17.7 billion barrels (see Table 4 and Map 1). Natural gas reserves are estimated for the producing North Slope fields at 29.5 trillion cubic feet (840 billion cubic meters) but most gas is currently being used to enhance existing oil production by re‑injection.[163]

The multinational corporations have already extracted 11.6 billion barrels of oil from the North Slope (Table 4).[164]  To date, 29 trillion cubic feet (821 billion cubic meters) of natural gas have been pumped out of the ground, but 90% of this has been re‑injected into the reservoirs to maintain pressure and to conserve the gas for later use.  However, 137 billion cubic feet (3.9 billion cubic meters) of all natural gas brought out of the ground has been vented and flared --directly released into the atmosphere.  Another 294 billion cubic feet (8.33 cubic meters) of natural gas has been shipped out as natural gas liquids (NGL).[165]


TABLE 4 ‑ Discovered North Slope Oil & Gas Fields

Oil reserve estimates from state of Alaska 1997 production forecasts, unless otherwise indicated.[166] 

Field sizes should be considered very conservative, as the state of Alaska's projections generally have underestimated future oil production by roughly 50%.[167]  Natural gas reserves are listed only for the largest fields. (Bbls = barrels; bcf = billion cubic feet natural gas; tcm = trillion cubic meters; bcm billion cubic meters; ?? =not disclosed).

Producing Oil Fields:                  Total Oil Reserves (bbls)       Amount Remaining (bbls)

                                                       (Commercially producible)

Prudhoe Bay Unit

Prudhoe Bay                                       13‑14 billion [168]                          3.4 billion

                                                                                                  23 trillion cu ft (650 bcm) natural gas

Kuparuk River Unit

Kuparuk[169]                                          2.6 billion                                  1.3 billion

                                                                                                  627 billion cu ft (17.8 bcm) natural gas

West Sak                                             0.5 ‑ 6.25 billion[170]                     ??

                                                                                                  (15‑25 billion bbls in place)[171]

Milne Point Unit

Milne Point

Sag River                                            270.1 million                              210 million[172]

Schrader Bluff                                     287.2 million[173]                          281 million

Cascade                                              50 million[174]                               49+ million

Endicott Unit

Endicott/

Sag Delta North                                  597.6 million[175]                          258 million

Greater Point McIntyre Area

Pt. McIntyre                                       465.2 million                              3 10 million

Niakuk/

West Niakuk                                       111.5 million[176]                          90 million

North Prudhoe Bay State/

West Beach                                        5.1 million                                 I million[177]

Lisburne                                             183.5 million                              57 million

Producing Gas fields:

Barrow Gas Fields[178]

S. Barrow                                            26 bcf gas                                 4 bcf gas

Walakpa                                              31 bcf gas                                 27 bcf gas

East Barrow                                        11.2 bcf gas                              5 bcf gas

Known North Slope oil and gas fields, not producing:

Proposed new oil fields:                            Total Oil Resources (barrels)

(permits under consideration)                    (Economically Recoverable)

Onshore:

Badami (BP)                                                    150 million[179]

Alpine (ARCO)                                               365 million[180]

Tarn (ARCO)                                                  40‑50 million[181]

Offshore:

North Star (Seal Island) (BP)                          150 million[182]

Liberty (Tern Island) (BP)                              120 million[183]

Other Known Fields across North Slope:

Onshore:

Ugnu                                                               ?? (I 1‑ 19 billion heavy oil in place)[184]

Sourdough (BP)                                              100 million[185]

Colville Delta (ARCO)                                    ?? (Kuukpik Unit)

Fiord (ARCO)                                                 ?? (in Colville Delta)

Kalubik (ARCO)                                             ?? (in Colville Delta)

Mikkelsen (Exxon/ARCO)                              ??

East Umiat (UMC Pet)                                    4 bcf` natural gas[186]

Kavik (BP)                                                      Less than I bcf` natural gas[187]

Gubik                                                              600 bcf` natural gas[188]

Kemik (BP)                                                     12.4 bcf natural gas[189]

Sikulik (North Slope Borough)                          ?? Natural gas[190]

Onshore ‑ National Petroleum Reserve‑ Alaska

Fish Creek'                                                     Less than I million[191]

Simpson                                                          12 million[192]

Umiat                                                              70 million[193]

Meade                                                             20 bcf natural gas[194]

Square Lake                                                   58 bcf natural gas[195]

Wolf Creek                                                     Less than I bcf` natural gas[196]

Both Onshore & offshore:

Gwyder Bay                                                    60 million[197]

Pt. Thomson/

Flaxman Island (Exxon)[198]                              300 million[199]

                                                                        5 trillion cu ft (140 billion cubic meters) natural gas

Offshore

Sandpiper (Murphy)                                         150 million[200]

Kuvlum (Union Texas Petroleum)                     325 million[201]

Hammerhead (Shell)                                        ?? Oil



Projected new Production from known fields

More than 32 oil fields have been discovered on the North Slope to date (see Map I and Table 4).[202]  On the periphery of the producing fields there may be 50 more satellite fields which may range from 1 to 100 million barrels each.[203]

The State of Alaska estimates that 7 billion more barrels of oil will be pumped from the known North Slope fields by 2020.[204]  Three of these fields (Niakuk, Pt. McIntyre, and West Beach) have come on line since 1993.  However, the State of Alaska has consistently underestimated future oil production and some estimates place the likely production from already producing fields for the next ten years much higher.[205]  Since 1985, the State has tripled the amount of oil it expects will be pumped from the Prudhoe Bay region by 2010.[206]  This means that a great deal more oil is likely to be pumped out of the ground in the future than is currently being projected.

Industry information shows that technology will most likely keep wells pumping at Prudhoe Bay and 12 existing satellite fields past the year 2030,[207] with estimates from British Petroleum pushing this to the year 2040.[208]  The Cambridge Energy Research Associates showed an increase in North Slope "productive capacity" by the year 2005, without new discoveries or production from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[209]  In the past, the oil companies and government officials claimed that the Trans‑Alaska pipeline would run out soon, but now even ARCO's president says there will be "no decline by 1999,"[210] and that production between 2000 and 2005 will equal or exceed current levels.

Other already discovered fields near to Prudhoe Bay currently under permit review for development (Northstar, Badami, Alpine), are projected to bring on line more than a billion more barrels of oil. But this is just the beginning. ARCO's president estimates that between 50‑60[211] smaller, 'satellites' are estimated to be found on the North Slope which may hold 1 billion barrels of oil.[212]  British Petroleum puts the number even higher: "According to BP's estimates, the potential for adding new oil reserves on the North Slope over the next decade amounts to 5 billion barrels, not counting ANWR. That's the equivalent of finding two new Kuparuks, more than a dozen new Point McIntyres or 100 new Niakuks. Nearly all these reserves ... will come from known resources in or adjacent to existing fields.[213]

The giant West Sak field may eventually surpass all other potential. It may yield 0.5‑6.25 billion barrels. This heavy oil reservoir believed to hold 15‑25 billion barrels in the ground is just starting to be tapped by British Petroleum at Schrader Bluff and by ARCO at West Sak (Map 1, Table 4).

"Open for business" ,

The oil industry has obtained significant tax, royalty and other breaks in recent years from the State of Alaska and the U.S. Government.  Alaska's Democratic Governor Tony Knowles has


been even friendlier to the oil companies than his predecessor, Governor Wally Hickel who was an unabashed resource development booster.  Hickel, however, did not see that the oil company's interests and the State's interests were always the same.  After having settled 17 tax, royalty and pipeline tariff disputes with the oil industry for US$1.3 billion,[214] Governor Hickel sought state legislation that would extend the statute of limitations so that the State could claim US$4 billion more back taxes owed by the oil companies. The Alaska Legislature voted it down.[215]

In the past few years, the Alaska State legislature dominated by pro‑development Republicans has passed many new tax breaks.  In 1996, oil companies spent over US$1 million dollars lobbying the Alaska Legislature.[216]  British Petroleum (BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.) spent US$436,042 in 1996 and topped the list of lobbyist salaries and expenses both in 1996 and in 1995.  Exxon Co. USA dropped from the second spot to third in 1996 (US$283,037 spent), ARCO Alaska Inc. ranked fourth (US$199,208) and Marathon Oil Co. was ninth (US$117,595).[217]

In 1997, the Alaska Legislature approved giving US$550,000 to Arctic Power, a "grassroots" industry front group lobbying the U.S. Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, and another US$600,000 to Governor Tony Knowles for lobbying about the Arctic Refuge and leasing in the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska.[218]

Despite a strong commitment to protect the Arctic Wildlife Refuge from oil drilling, the Democratic Clinton Administration has also advocated for the oil industry in numerous areas, such as working to end the North Slope oil export ban and continuing to lease Arctic offshore areas to oil companies.

A Sampling of New Tax Breaks and Special Deals

State of Alaska:

Spill tax partially repealed.  After the Exxon Valdez spill, the Alaska Legislature enacted a nickel‑a‑barrel tax on oil producers for oil spill cleanups and spill prevention programs.  In 1994, the oil companies convinced the Republican Legislature to split the tax into separate funds, with the 3‑cents a barrel tax for spill prevention always in effect, and a 2‑cents a barrel tax which is suspended once the oil spill response fund reaches US$50 million.  British Petroleum, the State's largest oil producer, estimated this would reward them with US$11‑12 million per year more profits.[219]

Royalty Breaks.  Governor Knowles drafted a bill passed by the Alaska Legislature in June 1995 that gave the Commissioner of Natural Resources unilateral and unappealable authority to reduce the state's ownership share up to 75% in oil fields that oil corporations claim they would not otherwise develop.[220]  British Petroleum sought the legislative change for its Badami oil field, its first major expansion of infrastructure to the east of Prudhoe Bay (although, to date, it has not applied for relief for that field). At the signing ceremony, Governor Knowles said, "symbolically, it sends a clear message that Alaska is ready and open for business, that we're a good partner with the industry.”[221]

In 1996, Unocal applied for royalty reductions from 12.5 down to 3.0 to 9.5% for ten offshore platforms in Cook Inlet.  The State Department of Natural Resources basically denied Unocal's original proposal and recently countered with another method for calculating royalty relief for only some of the truly marginal platforms.[222]  In 1996, ARCO 'sought the royalty break for its discovery lease at the Alpine field which would reduce the State share of the oil produced from 12.5% to 5%, but a decision has not been announced.[223]

Northstar deal. Governor Tony Knowles negotiated in private a special deal for British Petroleum that changed the royalty terms of Northstar leases which was then approved by the Alaska State Legislature.  The Governor agreed to give up the state's 89% share of profits from the offshore field in exchange for a "supplemental royalty" if oil prices rise above US$17.35 per barrel.[224]  It is estimated that deal cost the state at least US$9 million, and, by the end of the Legislative debate, critics said it was clear that British Petroleum did not need the royalty break and planned to develop the oil field anyway.  Knowles justified this deal as one of many incentives to halt the oil industry's 'flight' from Alaska.[225]  Two Alaska citizens challenged the deal on grounds that the State should not have been able to make substantial changes to the leases in private because the state originally sold these by competitive bid and other Alaskans (and former leaseholders, Amerada Hess and Shell Oil) were not offered the same deal approved for British Petroleum. The challengers lost their first round in court and are appealing the decision.[226]

Reduced Environmental Review and Public Comment In 1996, the Alaska State Legislature changed the law to facilitate leasing of huge areas under "area wide leasing." Once the Department of Natural Resources issues a "best interest finding" for a lease sale, it can conduct lease sales in the same area for the next ten years without any more public comment.[227]

 

Exploration licenses. In 1994, Alaska passed legislation allowing the granting of exploration licenses to oil companies throughout Alaska, except in Cook Inlet and the North Slope (the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve was also excluded from licensing because of its other values, and the Alaska Peninsula/ Aleutian chain was excluded as a result of negligible oil potential).[228]  The licenses grant an oil company the exclusive right, for up to 10 years, to explore an area 10,000­500,000 acres (4,050‑ 202,500 ha). The bidder willing to spend the most on direct exploration expenditures wins the lease, and pays only US$1 per acre per year. An oil company can hold a maximum of 2 million acres (809,400 ha) in licenses at any one time.  There is virtually no opportunity for public comment and review of the licenses.

Exploration Incetive Credits. Since 1983, the State Commissioner of Natural Resources has been authorized to give royalty or tax credits of up to 50% of the cost of drilling certain exploratory wells on state lands.  Oil companies have received a total of US$58.7 million in subsidies at a rate of US$2.9 million per well.  Of the 20 wells receiving exploration incentive credits, 80% were drilled in the past decade.  Six of these wells were in the Colville River delta and British Petroleum received $3.3 million credits in 1994 for one well a few miles from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.[229]

Federal government:

North Slope oil export ban ended.  The State of Alaska, the U.S. Department of Energy, and Alaska's Congressional representatives pushed hard to end the ban on export of Alaska's North Slope oil.  President Clinton signed the law lifting the ban on November 29, 1995 and penned a finding that exports are in the national interest on April 28, 1996.[230]  This overturned the Congressional compromise made when the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline was authorized in 1973 that the oil would only flow to U.S. markets.  British Petroleum stands to gain the greatest increased profits from export of Alaskan North Slope oil because it lacks refinery or distribution capacity on the West Coast, and therefore may find its most profitable markets in the Far East.[231]

British Petroleum started exporting oil to Kaohsiug, Taiwan in February 1996 under a one‑year agreement to supply 3.6‑5.5 million barrels of crude oil.[232]  An agreement with a refiner in South Korea (LG‑Caltex, a joint venture that includes Texaco Inc. and Chevron, Inc.) for 10.6 million barrels of crude oil per year, with automatic annual renewal, took effect December 20, 1996.  In 1997, the Chinese (PRC) agreed to buy US$50‑1 00 million worth of North Slope crude oil.[233]  In the first five months of 1997, British Petroleum America exported to China 2.6 million barrels (109 million gallons, 413 million liters) of oil, valued at US$57 million.[234]  From January to April, Alaska oil producers exported US$307 million in petroleum products to South Korea, China and other countries, five times the amount that was exported in the previous year (refined petroleum products and crude oil from Cook Inlet had been allowed for export even prior to lifting the North Slope ban).[235]  Exxon began shipping to Japan with a load of 1.8 million barrels in July 1997 and has sold another 1.5 million barrels to the Japanese Sakai refinery.[236]

Drilling Tax breaks.  ARCO, British Petroleum and other oil companies are seeking a federal tax subsidy for horizontally drilled wells, a technology that has been used for years on the North Slope to reach smaller pockets of oil and enhance oil recovery.  Governor Tony Knowles has advocated in support of this to the Clinton Administration.  However, a U.S. Treasury Department tax specialist wrote Congress that horizontal drilling does not meet the tax law's requirements (the 15% enhanced oil recovery tax credit is to encourage use of injection technology to raise production from declining fields).  If they cannot get the benefit from a modification of the tax code, oil producers say they will seek Congressional changes in the law.[237]

"Right‑to‑Know" Exemptions. In 1996, the oil industry successfully lobbied to continue to have most oil exploration and production facilities exempted from EPA's regulatory proposal to expand the number of industries required to submit "right‑to‑know" reports annually under the Toxics Release Inventory program.[238]

Reduced blowout preventer testing rates.  In January 1997, the MMS reduced the offshore oil driller's requirement for tests of oil well blowout preventer equipment to half the rate as before, from testing once every 7 days to once every 14 days for new wells and current activities. The offshore industry had requested this regulatory change in 1992.[239]

New development boom

When the price of oil crashed in the late 1980's the pace of oil industry operations (especially new exploration) slowed somewhat due to the lower profitability of oil compared with the all-­time high.  But new computer capacity and technological advances in drilling methods and enhanced oil recovery have driven down the costs of both exploration and development.  Now, there is another boom of oil field development on the North Slope rivaling the last major expansion in the 1980's, when the Kuparuk field started pumping crude and offshore exploration peaked.

ARCO is pushing out to the west with its Alpine field at the gateway to the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska.  British Petroleum is driving both north into the Beaufort Sea with development of the Northstar and Liberty fields and east with Badami, towards the border of the Arctic Refuge (see Map 1).

There is also a cluster of known offshore fields (Kuvlum, Hammerhead) 10‑20 miles (16‑32 km) off the coast of the Arctic Refuge operated by oil corporations which are typically less dominant on the North Slope (Union Texas Petroleum and Shell Oil, although British Petroleum, Chevron, ARCO and other dominant companies have interests). The oil companies have plans to go ahead with these offshore projects once the subsea pipeline technology has been tested and when a group of fields can be developed together.[240]  ARCO is currently proposing the Warthog well, and has established an exploration and development unit, at Camden Bay next to the Arctic Refuge shoreline.

Snapshot of proposed new fields currently being reviewed for permits.

Alpine. ARCO's proposed Alpine project is located west of Prudhoe Bay in the Colville River delta along the eastern boundary of the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska. This is the first oil field on the North Slope to be exploited entirely in a floodplain. The Colville River's large delta has a diverse array of interspersed lakes, ponds and other wetlands which provide important habitat for migratory birds including yellow‑billed loons, spectacled eiders and brant.[241]  The delta is also significant for overwintering ciscoes, whitefishes and international populations of Arctic char that support subsistence and commercial fisheries.[242]  The gravel fill, noise disturbance from the aircraft support and other facilities and chronic spills will irreversibly degrade wetlands habitats that are important for fish, wildlife and subsistence users.  The Alpine oil field is less than 10 miles (16 km) from the Inupiat village of Nuiqsut and will cause major changes to subsistence in this area where the residents hunt and fish.[243]

The Alpine field will be linked to the existing Kuparuk oil field using a below‑river pipeline crossing.  The technology of boring under the main Colville River channel in continuous permafrost is unproven in the U.S. Arctic and poses major risks of permafrost melting, pipeline corrosion and catastrophic oil spills.


ARCO's Alpine field is clearly the driving force for more oil extraction to the west in the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska.  The proposed pipeline corridor, especially the Colville River crossing, is the first step of development for a much larger area.  The cumulative effects of this project along with the existing and future oil field development projects onshore and offshore in the Beaufort Sea will have significant effects on the human and natural environment.  To date, the U.S. government still has not required preparation of an environmental impact statement for the Alpine oil field.[244]

Northstar.  Northstar (Seal Island) is the first offshore project in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea to propose using sub‑sea pipeline technology which as yet has not been proven technically feasible in the Arctic Ocean off Alaska.  The Beaufort Sea coastal zone around Northstar is important habitat for migrating bowhead whales, spotted seals, polar bears and other marine mammals, and is a key hunting area relied upon by the Nuiqsut people.[245]  A major oil spill from a well blowout, pipeline breaks or tanker spills in broken ice conditions would devastate this rich marine habitat. The U.S. Corps of Engineers is currently preparing an environmental impact statement on this project.

British Petroleum proposes to construct a 6‑mile (9.6 km) long sub‑sea pipeline from a new gravel island to the shoreline in the Pt. McIntyre area.  This would connect to the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline with an eleven‑mile long pipeline onshore.  The sub‑sea pipeline is proposed to be buried just 7‑9 feet (2.1‑2.7 meters) below the seabed in the 4‑mile (1.2 m) long section north of the barrier islands (only 6 feet (1.8 m) below seabed in area south of the barrier islands).[246]   The pipeline would be threatened by damage from sea ice gouging which occurs as pack ice moves over shallower waters and the deep keels of pressure ridges plough the sea floor.

How deep must pipelines be buried to reduce chances of being gouged by the keel of a pressure ridge of sea ice?  Scientists don't even know the typical depths or even present rates of ice gouging.  Some areas along the Beaufort Sea coast have more than 320 gouges per square mile (124 per km sq.).  Intense gouging occurs in the lead zone and dense gouging also occurs on the seaward side of shoals.[247]  If pipelines are deeply buried to avoid gouging, the hot pipelines may instead melt unstable subsea permafrost and cause compaction that breaks pipelines.[248]

Despite claims of advanced technology for spill detection and pipeline shutdown, major spills from elevated onshore pipelines have gone unnoticed.  In August 1989, 25,000 gallons (113,653 liters) of oil spread onto the tundra at Kuparuk from a pipeline valve.  Internal pipeline corrosion caused an 11,000 gallon (50,000 liter) spill in Kuparuk in November 1989.  There were major problems with undetected spills from the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline during early operations and recently serious corrosion problems have become evident, especially in buried sections where many miles of pipe have been replaced.[249]

British Petroleum plans to dump 700,000 cubic yards (535,000 cubic meters) of gravel over the existing artificial island used for exploration.  However, Seal Island is "continuously eroding" due to strong storm waves of the open ocean and intense sea ice movements and therefore BP says it is "impossible to predict" how much gravel will actually be needed.[250]  The gravel would be extracted from a new mine in the riverbed in the Kuparuk River Delta.

Liberty.  British Petroleum announced plans to develop this offshore field east of its Endicott field in 1997.  The oil field would be developed from a new gravel island built northwest of Tern Island, where Shell Oil drilled discovery well in 1982, and would require a subsea pipeline to transport oil to shore.[251]  The sub‑sea pipeline technology is to date unproven.  Chronic pollution and potential spills may affect the nearby rich benthic community known as the boulder patch where kelps, sponges and invertebrates thrive in uncommon productivity for the Arctic Ocean.[252]

Badami.  British Petroleum's construction of the Badami oil field, which has already been permitted, has caused significant expansion of oil field infrastructure to the east.[253]  A short causeway into the Beaufort Sea was proposed initially as a temporary dock for unloading the production modules, but now is likely to be used to support future oil field developments.  The pipeline crossings of rivers are proposed to be buried below rivers, and are sized to support additional crude oil from other new onshore and offshore oil fields to the east towards the border of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Construction of the pipeline to Badami could also improve economics for developing a group of fields offshore, including Kuvlum and Hammerhead.[254]

Proposal for new leasing, National Petroleum Reserve ‑ Alaska

While some small oil and gas fields have been discovered through exploratory drilling programs conducted by industry and government, there are currently no active Federal leases in the National Petroleum Reserve‑ Alaska (NPRA).  However, oil industry interest has intensified in the past year with the recent announcement of the Alpine oil development by ARCO Alaska, Inc. in the Colville River delta adjacent to the reserve.[255]  A lease sale just west of the Colville Delta was recently conducted jointly by the State of Alaska and Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). In January, 1997 Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt announced a new planning effort expected to culminate in lease sales within a 4.3 million acre (1.7 million ha) area in the northeast comer of the NPRA.[256]

In the northeast corner of the NPRA, two key habitats are threatened by the prospect of leasing: Teshekpuk Lake and the Colville River.  Teshekpuk Lake is a globally significant molting area for Pacific brant and other waterfowl where each year, nearly 22% of the world's Pacific brant population fattens up on lush wetland plants next to large deep lakes.[257]  No other comparable area with the combination of low‑lying lakes and lush vegetation and freedom from disturbance is available to this brant population along Alaska's northern coast.[258]

Cliffs along the upper reaches of the Colville support phenomenal nesting densities of Arctic peregrine falcons, rough‑legged hawks and gyrfalcons and the Colville's rich riparian zones provide habitat for moose and crucial spawning, rearing and over‑wintering habitat for at least twenty species of anadromous, and freshwater fish.  Fish and wildlife habitats would be degraded by increased industrial activity and potential gravel mining since the Colville River and its banks contain some of the only gravel reserves in the NPRA region.[259]

Once oil field development begins with roads and pipeline corridors, areas farther to the west within the NPRA would also face cumulative impacts from oil field development, as well as increased pressure for coal and other mineral extraction over vast areas in NPRA (such mining is prohibited under existing law). Two key habitats that are threatened by the piecemeal, long‑term development of the NPRA are the Utukok uplands and Kasegaluk Lagoon.

The Utukok uplands, encompassing the headwaters of the Utukok River, lie near the southernmost border of the NPRA, along the boundary of the Noatak National Preserve.  The Utukok uplands provide the calving grounds for the Western Arctic caribou herd. At 450,000 animals, it is Alaska's largest caribou herd.  This area is also prime habitat for brown bears, wolverine and wolves.  The Kasegaluk/ Icy Cape area at the northwestern comer of NPRA along the Chukchi Sea constitutes one of the largest coastal lagoon‑barrier islands systems in the world. It is an important fall staging area for other waterfowl and shorebirds and supports the largest concentrations of spotted seals and beluga whales along the Chukchi Sea coast of Alaska.  Up to 3,500 beluga whales use the lagoon for feeding, calving and molting.[260]

Natural gas ‑ the next bonanza?

Although industry has focused on extraction of oil, the North Slope also holds huge quantities of natural gas. The total reserves are estimated at 29.5 trillion cubic feet (0.85 trillion cubic meters), and to date over 29.2 trillion cubic feet (0.83 trillion cubic meters) have been extracted.[261]  During 1996, 3.1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas was extracted from the North Slope fields.  However, 92% of the gas produced in the course of producing crude oil, was separated from the oil and reinjected back into the reservoir.[262]  The net production used to fuel oil operations and transportation was 261 billion cubic feet (7.4 billion cubic meters), is roughly the same amount as has been produced from the Cook Inlet fields since they began pumping.

Since 1987, increased amounts of natural gas liquids have been shipped down the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline with the crude oil.[263]  Today, roughly 10 billion cubic feet (283 million cubic meters) per year is flared off during the production or refining process at Prudhoe Bay.  The rest has been reinjected back into the Prudhoe Bay and other reservoirs in order to maintain the high pressure (pumps are not needed to lift North Slope crude out of the ground except at Milne Point, Schrader Bluff and West Sak) and requires a roaring gas handling plant (GHX‑1 and II) that is the largest such facility in the world.

As the Prudhoe field declines, or the economics for linking up the known Pt. Thomson gas fields which contain valuable gas condensate improve, the push to build a natural gas pipeline across Alaska from the North Slope to Valdez is likely to intensify.[264]  The Yukon Pacific Corporation promoting the Trans‑Alaska Gas Pipeline has already obtained nearly all of its necessary permits, but does not own any natural gas.[265]  The major owners of natural gas (Exxon Corp. owns the most natural gas in the Prudhoe field, followed by ARCO Alaska Inc. and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. in contrast to their ownership of oil wherein British Petroleum holds the largest share),[266] considered the idea of slicing a natural gas pipeline route to the west across the NPRA to a port on the Chukchi Sea.  They apparently have ruled out that invasive alternative in favor of  paralleling the TAPS route.[267]

Furthermore, these schemes would be moot, if the new technology of turning natural gas into liquid "oil" comes to fruition.[268]  It is conceivable that such techniques could eventually transform the crude oil pipeline into one that transports natural gas.  The Oil and Gas Journal notes, " in Alaska, for example, 25 trillion cubic feet [707.9 billion cubic meters] gas known to lie under the North Slope might become synthetic fuels able to move through spare capacity on the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System.  That's 2.5 billion bbl of potential oil supply that doesn't depend on future discovery."[269]

Pumping Profits

At any rate, the three corporations which own more than 90% of the pipeline (British Petroleum, ARCO, and Exxon) will strive to keep the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline pumping as long as it is profitable because their lucrative capital investment is paid for and they will continue to profit by charging tariffs on any product which flows through it.  British Petroleum's profits from North Slope oil production and pipeline operations are estimated to have averaged US$2 billion per year since 1977.[270]  Since crude oil began flowing, the oil companies have reaped over $57 billion in profits from North Slope production and pipeline.[271]  Today, the oil companies anticipate keeping the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline full of oil from already discovered oil fields until well into the next century unlike the situation over the past decade when they offered dire predictions that declining production from the supergiant Prudhoe Bay could lead to shutdown of the pipeline by the turn of the century.[272]

Conclusions

The Arctic is a land of stark beauty and extremes. In recent times, it has become just a distant resource frontier in the eyes of government policy‑makers and corporate executives.  But to traditional cultures and the inhabitants of the oceans and tundra the Arctic is home.

Multinational oil corporations are now greatly expanding their reach of exploitation across Alaska's Arctic coast.  The magnitude of this new development boom has received little attention from the public.  Further, no comprehensive environmental review been initiated that recognizes the scale of expansion now underway.  Unprecedented offshore projects like British Petroleum's Northstar and Liberty oil field developments involve high risks of oil spills from untested subsea pipeline technology and will result in industrial facilities in the heart of key traditional subsistence areas used by Alaska Native people.  Oil fields that in the past would have been considered uneconomic to produce are now slated for development on State lands and waters on the North Slope due to new computer and oil field technology.  As pipelines and processing facilities extend in both directions from Prudhoe Bay and the 14 other existing oil fields, the industrial complex will continue to sprawl with incremental new developments.

The oil industry is not only bringing vast amounts of known oil reserves into production, but it is pressing to explore sensitive frontier areas.  For example, ARCO's offshore Warthog well which is located in the migratory pathway of bowhead whales in Camden Bay and off the coast of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  The State of Alaska has proposed vast new offshore lease sales in the nearshore zone of the entire Beaufort Sea and to lease its entire North Slope lands in giant area‑wide sales that will continue domination of these areas by the oil companies well into the next century.  Upper Cook Inlet is also slated for massive State sales encompassing its entire watershed.  The U.S. Minerals Management Service also has on its planning charts massive new sales in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and Cook Inlet which indicate business as usual for the oil companies.

ARCO and other companies loom at the gateway of the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska, with the proposed Alpine oil field at its boundary.  The corporations are pushing hard for a new cycle of lease sales here so they can launch piecemeal expansions of oil production across this huge area. And, British Petroleum, ARCO, Chevron, and others continue to press to open the last 5% of the North Slope wilderness not available to them for drilling or development, the coastal plain of America's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

With the expansion of oil and gas development, more oil wells will be drilled through shifting ice, in the migratory pathways of whales and caribou, and in bird nesting grounds.  The potential for uncontrolled oil well blowouts in the icy seas forebodes disastrous consequences. Tankers may ply ice‑infested waters and oil spills will foul rich bays and lagoons tucked into the shorelines.  The tundra will be crisscrossed by permanent scars from roads, pipeline, and other infrastructure to support offshore operations.  The reach of industrial development will extend into now inaccessible areas of the north for extraction of coal, minerals, and more onshore oil and gas.

The oil industry's vision for the Alaskan Arctic vastly dwarfs even the large industrial complex which presently exists at Prudhoe Bay.  Indeed, fulfillment of plans for development of offshore fields in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas and across the North Slope will forever degrade, if not destroy, the integrity of the Arctic environment and the traditional culture of coastal communities. Although the potential for damage on active oil and gas leases is grave, much of the Alaskan Arctic may yet be spared oil industry activity.

The entire Federal Outer Continental Shelf in Alaska is estimated to contain far less than one year's worth of oil for the US.[273]  Similarly, if oil fields even exist in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, only 51 days worth of U.S. oil supplies would likely be produced.[274]  Such amounts cannot contribute meaningfully to U.S. energy security.  Every delay in the transition to clean energy alternatives is time lost in the race to stabilize global climate change.  This is of particular significance to the Arctic which is on the frontline in terms of impacts from climate change.

There is still time to change the course of events in the Arctic.


References Cited

[275]


[1]      U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1987. Comparison of actual and predicted impacts of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System and Prudhoe Bay oilfields on the North Slope of Alaska. draft report prepared by Fairbanks Fish and Wildlife Enhancement Office.; D.A. Walker, P.J. Webber, E.F. Binnian, K.R. Everett, N.D. Lederer, E.A. Nordstrand, M.D. Walker. 6 November 1987. "Cumulative impacts of oil fields on northern Alaskan landscapes". Science 238: 757‑761; ARCO Alaska, Inc. November 1996. Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan Kuparuk Field and Pipeline. Vols. 1 &2; ARCO Alaska Inc. Revised July 1996. Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan, Prudhoe Bay Unit and Greater Point McIntyre Area, Vol 2; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. August 1992 (revised May 1994). Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan, Endicott Operations, North Slope Alaska; BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. June 1994 (revised December 1996). Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plan, Prudhoe Bay& Milne Point Units, North Slope Alaska. All plans submitted as required to Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

[2]     "North Slope Satellite Projects Spark Alaska Exploration." 26 May 1997. Oil and Gas Journal. 95:21.

[3]      S. Jones. "Political rebound: Less than eight years after the Exxon Valdez spill, the oil industry enjoys smooth sailing in Juneau." Anchorage Daily News. 12 January 1997. p. F‑1.

[4]     S. Jones. 12 January 1997. p.F-1.

[5]     S. Jones. p.F 1; Oil and Gas Journal. 16 June 1997. "North Slope producers see Alaska renaissance as TAPS reaches 20." Vol. 95:24; Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). 30 October 1996. "New Study Identifies Profound Impact of information Technology on the Global Supply and Economics of Oil and Gas." Press Release (CERA Web Site).

[6]     U.S. Department of Energy. 1994. Exporting Alaskan North Slope Crude Oil. Benefits and Costs. Washington DC. p. 3.

[7]     ARCO plans to drill over 600 wells on the North Slope in the next five years ("Interview: Ken Thompson, President, Arco Alaska, Inc." Alaska Oil and Gas Reporter. 28 November 1994. p.22) and British Petroleum said it will need 275‑350 production wells for development of satellite fields (Beechy state (Ivishak prospect), near Kuparuk, West Sak/ Schrader bluff, and Sierra Nevada/Sam; see. "Exploration update: Prudhoe Bay 'satellite' fields could add new production, reserves," Alaska Oil & Gas Reporter. 15 April 1997. p.5) and 23 wells for North Star (BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. ("Northstar Final Project description." Rev. 1. 27 March 1997. p. 1.2‑3), and 40 wells for Badami (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District, Public Notice CENPA‑CO No. 2‑940700. revision dated 31 July 1995. Mikkelsen Bay 2, for Badami development project). ARCO plans to spend S 1.7 billion on the North Slope and BP will spend $3.5 billion over the next 5 years. "Exxon Co. USA, a partner in several North Slope fields, also will increase its capital investment.. Exxon declined to release specific figures..."North Slope Report: North Slope producers are now bullish on Alaska's oil prospects." Petroleum News Alaska. 17 February 1997. p.3.).

[8]     U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1996. Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 144. Final Environmental Impact Statement Vol. 1. OCS EIS/EA MMS 96‑0012. p. IV.A‑27.

[9]     D. Adams and A. Farrington. "Whaling Captains boycott hearing." Arctic Sounder. 17 July 1997. p. 1, 16.

[10]    Extensive public testimony has been presented by the Inupiat people of the North Slope on the effects of offshore oil drilling to the bowhead whale and other marine mammals central to their culture in hearings held by the Minerals Management Service (transcripts available from MMS; for excerpts see "Native Voices." in PA Miller, D. Smith, and P.K‑ Miller. 1993. Oil in Arctic Waters. Greenpeace: Anchorage). D. Hoffman, D. Libbey, and G. Spearman. 1978 (revised 1988). Nuiqsut. Land use values through time in the Nuiqsut area. North Slope Borough and the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. D. Boeri. 1983. People of the Ice Whale. E.P. Dutton: New York.

[11]    The Wilderness Society, et al. Public comment letter of June 3, 1997 on ARCO's proposed Camden Bay unit to John Goll, Regional Director, U.S. Minerals Management Service and Kenneth A. Boyd, Alaska Department of Natural Resources.

[12]    Trustees for Alaska v. State, DNR‑ 865 P.2d 745, 748. (Alaska 1993) "Demarcation Point"; Trustees for Alaska v. State, DNR‑ 795 P.2d 805, 809 (Alaska 1990), "Camden Bay I."; D. Hulen‑ "Gwich'in give Murkowski an earful: herds of caribou are more important than drilling in ANWR, villagers say". Anchorage Daily News. 26 August 1995. p. A‑1; S.B. Garland. "High Noon on the Alaskan Tundra." Business Week. 11 December 1995. p.36.

[13]    D. Whitney. "Budget, ANWR won't mix: Young won't push provision." Anchorage Daily News. 6 June 1997. p.B-1.

[14]    The "Arctic ring of life" was named by Savva Uspenski, a Russian polar bear biologist. The seasonal dynamics of sea ice in this zone at the meeting point of the Arctic Ocean with the northern rim of the world's continents, shape the movements and behavior of an unmatched array of birds, mammals, and fish. Wildlife and the nutrients forming the base of the Arctic food web concentrate at the ice edge and along the sea coast.

[15]    J.T. Houghton, L.G. Meiro Filho, B.A. Callander, N. Harris, A. Kattenberg, and K. Maskell (eds). 1996. Climate Change 1995. The Science of Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UY,

[16]   UNEP Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases. 1990. Targets and Indicators of Climate Change. Stockholm Env ironment Institute, Boston.

[17]    This analysis is based on B. Hare. 1997. Fossil fuels and Climate Protection ‑ the Carbon Arithmetic. Greenpeace International: Amsterdam. p. 56.

[18]    Ibid.

[19]    Ibid.  p. 13. Estimates of the total economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels range from 929‑1,501 GtC. Due to technological development and exploration this could ultimately bring reserves to 4,000 GtC.

[20]    Ibid. p. 56.

[21]    Ibid.  pp.52-53.

[22]    N. Davis. 1984. Energy ‑ Alaska. University of Alaska Press, Fairbanks, p. 197.

[23]    Ibid p.203.

[24]    A.C. Banet 1991. Oil and gas development on Alaska's North Slope: Past results and future prospects. BLM‑Alaska Open File Report 34. Anchorage. p.27.

[25]    N. Davis. 1984. p.203.

[26]    C‑M. Naske and H.E. Slomick. 1997. Alaska: A history of the 49th state. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman, p. 241­243; N. Davis. 1984. Energy ‑ Alaska. University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks. p. 198‑9.

[27]    P.A. Coates. 1993. The Trans‑Alaska Pipeline Controversy. University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks. p. 45; N. Davis. 1984. Energy ‑ Alaska. University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks. p. 157, 199.

[28]    N. Davis. 1984. p.201.

 

[29]    D. Postman. "Secret Partners: The Untold Story of Oil in Alaska." Anchorage Daily News. 4 February 1990. p.A-9.

[30]    Ibid.

[31]    Ibid.

[32]    D. Postman. "New Interior Secretary accelerated oil development in moose range." Anchorage Daily News. 8 February 1990. P.A-1.

[33]    D. Postman. 4 February 1990. p.A‑9.

[34]    P.A. Coates. 1993. The Trans‑Alaska Pipeline Controversy. University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks. p. 92‑93.

[35]    D. Postman. "Potential oil‑lease scandal worried Interior Secretary." Anchorage Daily News. 9 February 1990. p. A‑13.

[36]    Petroleum News Alaska. "This month in 1957." July 1997. p.B8.

[37]    D. Postman. "Oil and Dollars Flow: Epilogue: Upshot of oil lease deal." Anchorage Daily News. 11 February 1990. p.A-8.

[38]    Bureau of Land Management. November, 1992. "Frontier Flashes," in BLM‑Alaska Frontiers, Issue 39. BLM‑AK‑GI‑93­009‑1120‑912.

[39]    Harding‑Lawson Comprehensive Inventory Report: Potential Waste Disposal Sites to the Department of Environmental Conservation, 1991.

[40]    D. Postman. "Oil and Dollars Flow: Epilogue: Upshot of oil lease deal." Anchorage Daily News. 11 February 1990. p.A-8.

[41]    P.A. Miller, D. Smith, and P.K. Miller. 1993. Oil in Arctic Waters: the untold story of offshore drilling in Alaska. Greenpeace: Anchorage. p.78.

[42]    "Katalla to Prudhoe Bay: An entertaining look at the first 100 years of the oil and gas industry in Alaska." Petroleum News Alaska. 1997. p. 6.

[43]    B. Shulte. "Three top polluters are Alaskan: Group lists worst 100." Anchorage Daily News. 29 August 1992. p.C-1, 8.

[44]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption. p. 15.

[45]   Cook Inlet wells include I OCS Stratigraphic test well, 11 exploration wells in Federal waters, 75 exploration and 459 development and service wells in State waters. U.S.MMS. 1996. Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol 1. Alaska Region: Anchorage. 'OCS EIS/EA MMS 95‑0066. p. M.A‑20.

[46]   U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1996. Cook Inlet Planning Area; Oil & Gas Lease Sale 49. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Alaska OCS Region: Anchorage. OCSEIS/EAMMS95‑0066. p.III.A-20.

[47]   Amounts of drilling waste discharged from Cook Inlet NPDES DMR database; Tim L. Robertson, Affidavit of 5 January 1994.

[48]   Data on violations is from Affidavit of Tim L. Robertson. 5 January 1994. submitted in Ninilchik Traditional Council, et al. v. Harry Noah, Commissioner, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Superior Court for the State of Alaska, 3rd Judicial District, Civil Case No. 3KN‑93‑1174. More than a third of the violations found were violations when the wastes exceeded the permit limitations, with more drilling fluids and sanitary wastes being discharged than permitted. See also, N. Phillips. "Oil, gas leases debated: Groups cite 3,000 violations in Wet." Anchorage Daily News. 22 January 1994. p. A‑1.

[49]   S. Rinehart. "Oil pact sets up monitor. pollution settlement pays Wet watchdog." Anchorage Daily News. 7 October 1995. p. A‑ 1; EPA News Release. 6 October 1995. Seattle Region. Consolidated cases: Greenpeace, Trustees for Alaska, and Alaska Center for the Environment v. Union Oil Company of Calif6mia and Greenpeace, et al. v. Marathon Oil Company and Union Oil Company and Greenpeace et al. V. Shell Western E&P, Inc. Consent Decree and Order, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska, Cases No. A95‑067 CV (JKS), A95‑068 CV QKS), and A95‑069 CV (JKS) filed on 3 November 1995.

[50]   "Tesoro to pay $500,000 fine for refinery fuel spill." Anchorage Daily News. 29 March 199 1. p.B4.

[51]    "EPA imposes $550,000 fine on Tesoro for hazardous waste." Alaska Journal of Commerce. 19 July 1993. p. 19.

[52]    N. Phillips. "Oil, Gas leases debated: Groups cite 3,000 violations in Inlet." Anchorage Daily News. 22 January 1994. p. Al.

[53]   "Nikiski a Top Polluter, Unocal emissions are Northwest's Biggest." Anchorage Daily News. 21 April 1994. p. D‑1.

[54]   "Unocal pollutants down, but Nikiski plant still tops EPA list in Northwest." Peninsula Clarion. 28 March 1995.

[55]   Council on Environmental Quality. 1977. Oil and Gas in Coastal Lands and Waters. Washington D.C. p. 26; Alaska Geographic. 1982. Alaska's Oil Gas & Mineral's Industry. Vol. 9(4): 173.

[56]   C.D. Evans. 1970. "Environmental effects of petroleum development in the Cook Wet area." in Alaska Division AAAS. Science in Alaska: Proceedings, Twentieth Alaska Science Conference. pp.213‑22 1.

[57]   P.A. Coates. 1988. The Trans‑Alaska Pipeline Controversy in Historical Perspective: Attitudes towards the transformation of the Last American Frontier. Ph.D. dissertation. Wolfson College: England. p.202.

[58]   C.D. Evans. 1970. p. 217.

[59]   Ibid.

[60]    P.A. Coates. 1988. p. 202.

[61]    C.D. Evans. 1970.

[62]    E.J. Fortier. "Alaska Discovers 'Intruder Threatening Wildlife.  National Observer. 26 February 1968. Cited by P.A. Coates. 1988. p. 202.

[63]    C.D. Evans. 1970. p 217.

[64]    Council on Environmental Quality. 1977. Oil and Gas in Coastal Lands and Waters. Washington D.C. p. 64.

[65]    J.C. Bartonek, J.G. King, and H.K. Nelson. 1971. "Problems Confronting Migratory Birds in Alaska. " Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Conf. 36: 345‑361.

[66]    L. Flagg. 1989. "Oil Spill Prevention and Response Capabilities in Cook Inlet." Kenai Peninsula Fisherman's Association. Presentation to Alaska Oil Spill Commission. November 1989.

[67]    T. Kizzia. "Oil Firms Promise Safer Inlet Shipping'." Anchorage Daily News. 12 October 1989.

[68]    T. Kizzia. "Uncertainty Clouds Shutdown of Inlet Rigs." Anchorage Daily News. 20 March 1990. p A‑1.

[69]    U.S. Coast Guard. 1998. Federal On‑Scene Coordinators Report Major Oil Spill M/V Glacier Bay, Cook Inlet, Alaska. 2 July to 3 August 1987. Anchorage: Marine Safety Office.

[70]    MMS. 1989. Alaska Update, January 1987‑August 1988. Vienna, VA: OCS Information Report, MMS 88‑0073.

[71]    T. Kizzia. "Tankers Fight Cook Inlet Ice." Anchorage Daily News. 9 February 1990. p. B‑1.

[72]    "Thick ice blocks cleanup of Inlet oil spill." Anchorage Daily News. 2 February 1989; J.W. Whitney. 31 January 1989. "Response Report‑Alaska: Amoco Platform Anna, Upper Cook Inlet." Anchorage: NOAA.

[73]    T. Kizzia. "Uncertainty Clouds Shutdown of Inlet Rigs." Anchorage Daily News. 20 March 1990. p A‑1.

[74]    T. Kizzia. "Tankers Fight Cook Inlet Ice." Anchorage Daily News. 9 February 1990. p B‑1; T. Kizzia. "Uncertainty Clouds Shutdown of Inlet Rigs." Anchorage Daily News. 20 March 1990. p A‑1.

[75]    Associated Press. "Small Amount of Oil Spilled at Drift River." Anchorage Daily News. 18 December 1990. p B‑4.

[76]    B. Schulte. "3 top polluters are Alaskan: Group lists worst 100." Anchorage Daily News. 29 August 1992. p C‑1,8.

[77]    Greennet. 7 January 1992. "Alaska Pipeline Normal after Spill."; T. Kizzia. "Company to pay $90,000 for spill. State quiet about how much leaked from Kenai Pipe Line system in January." Anchorage Daily News. 24 December 1992. p A‑ 1; T. Kizzia "Company to pay $90,000 for spill: State quiet about how much leaked from Kenai Pipe Line system in January." Anchorage Daily News. 24 December 1992. p A‑1, 8.

[78]    NPRA Task Force. 1979. National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska 105 (c) Final Study, Vol. 1, for the Secretary of the Interior Summaries of Values and Resources Analysis and Land Use Options. U.S. Department of the Interior. Anchorage.

[79]    U.S. DOE 199 1. Alaska Oil and Gas: Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity? p. 2‑14.

[80]    U.S. DOE. 1991. p.2‑17.

[81]    Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984. PL 98‑366.

[82]    G.W. Brougham, A.C. Banet and T.C. Mowat. 1994. The National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska: A Minerals Reader. Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office: Anchorage (BLNVAK/ST‑97/005+1120+985), Table 1, p. 11.

[83]    J. Clarke. "Senator tells oil exporters to look west." Anchorage Daily News. 9 October 1996. p E‑4; S. Rinehart. "Knowles makes pitch for petroleum reserve." Anchorage Daily News. 5 December 1997. p E‑ 1. R. Thomas. and S. Rinehart. "Clinton OKs oil‑lease sale planning: proposal would open part of National Petroleum Reserve." Anchorage Daily News. 14 January 1997. p A‑1.

[84] Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 13 February 1997. Notice of intent to prepare an integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement on Management of the Northeastern portion of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, request for information, and call for nominations and comments. 62 FR 6797‑6799.

[85]    D.F. Dworsky and J.H. Ducker. 1991. The National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska: A Reader. U.S. Bureau of Land Management Alaska State Office: Anchorage (BLM‑AK‑PT‑91‑M‑1120‑910‑Rev9l). p.8.

[86]    D.S. Miller. 1990. Midnight Wilderness. Sierra Club Books: San Francisco. p.179.

[87]    The Alyeska Pipeline Service Company is a wholly‑owned subsidiary of these seven oil companies. Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. 1994. Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System: Facts, Anchorage cited by R. Fineberg. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility. Anchorage. p. 1. 1.

[88]    K. Brower. 197 1. Earth and the Great Weather. The Brooks Range. Friends of the Earth: San Francisco. pp.2‑28; P.A. Coates. 1993. The Trans‑Alaska Pipe1ine Controversy. University of Alaska Press: Fairbanks.

[89]    L. Mayo. 1977. "Crude Oil Tankers in Alaskan Waters." Alaska Conservation Review. 17:4‑5.

[90]    R.D. Miller. 1997. The Trans‑Alaska P47eline System Oil Spill Contingency Plan: A Critical Review of Planning Initial Response Actions to Control and Inland Oil Spill. Masters Thesis. California Coast University.

[91]    P.A. Miller et al. 1993. p. 76.

[92]    C. McCoy. 6 July 1989. "Broken Promises: Alyeska record shows how big oil neglected Alaskan environment Wall Street Journal. p. 1; R. Fineberg. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility: Valdez.

[93]    The Honorable John D. Dingell, Chairman. 14 July 1993. Opening Statement at Hearing on Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of Representatives.

[94]    R. Fineberg. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility: Valdez. p. 10. 1.

[95]     Quality Technology Company. 5 November 1993. Final Report of Audit on Behalf of BLM of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS), Audit Team highlights, p. 1‑2.

[96]    R. Fineberg. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility. p. ES‑15, 10.1, 11.20.

[97]    Ibid. p. ES‑9.

[98]     M. Fry. 1993 Exxon Valdez Symposium by American Ornithological Union, Fairbanks.

[99]    Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1997. Status Report. Anchorage.

[100] Ibid.

[101]    Alaska Health Bulletin 9(2). June 1993. Occupational exposures to oil mist during the Exxon Valdez spill cleanup. See also C. Reller. "Occupational Exposures from oil mist during the Exxon Valdez spill clean‑up." Research Paper available from Alaska Health Project. Anchorage. 4 pp. Risks to cleanup workers were raised early on by labor union officials and scientific researchers; see M. Barinaga. 4 August 1989. "Alaskan Oil Spill: Health Risks Uncovered." Science: p. 463.

[102]    According to the Exxon Valdez Trustee Council, only bald eagle populations have recovered. Archeological resources, common murres, intertidal communities, mussels, pink salmon, sediments, sockeye salmon, and subtidal communities are in the process of recovering. Recovery is unknown for designated wilderness areas that were oiled and for 8 species: black oystercatchers, clams, common loons, cutthroat trout, Dolly Varden, Kittlitz's murrelets, river otters and rock fish. Exxon Valdez Trustee Council. 1997 Status Report. Anchorage. p.10.

[103]    Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council. 1997.

[104]    P.A. Coates. 1993. p. 255; R. Fineberg,. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility: Valdez, Alaska. p. 2.20, 6.2.

[105]    Alyeska Web Site. 1997. Pipeline Facts: "Pipeline Construction," "Pipeline Operations."

[106]    W.L. Pamplin. 1979. "Construction related impacts of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System on Terrestrial habitats." Special Report No. 24, Joint Federal/State Fish and Wildlife Advisory Team.

[107]     W.L Pamplin. 1979.

[108]    Native Plants 1980, cited by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. 1987. Comparison of Actual and Predicted Impacts of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline System and Prudhoe Bay oil fields on the North Slope of Alaska, draft report, Fairbanks.

[109]    Densmore. 1987. in USFWS. 1987.

[110]    G.M. Zemansky. 1983. Water quality regulation during construction of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline System. PhD Dissertation. Univ. of Washington.

[111]    R. Fineberg. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility. Valdez. p. 2.17.

[112]    Alyeska Web Page. 1997. Pipeline Facts. "Pipeline Operations."

[113]    Studies found that calving within the Prudhoe field had already largely ceased by the time oil first started flowing in the TAPS pipeline K.R. Whitten and R.D. Cameron. 1985. "Distribution of caribou calving in relation to the Prudhoe Bay oil field." in A.M. Martell. and D.E. Russell, eds. Proceedings of the First North American Caribou Workshop, Whitehorse, Yukon. Ottawa: Canadian Wildlife Service. pp. 33‑39. Cows with calves also avoided the TAPS corridor. R.D. Cameron, K.R. Whitten, W.T. Smith, and D.D. Roby. 1979. "Caribou distribution and group composition associated with construction of the Trans‑Alaska Pipeline." Can Field-Natur. 93: 155‑162. The dense network of pipelines, roads, oil wells and production facilities at Prudhoe blocked mid‑summer caribou migration along the coast. K.R Whitten and R.D. Cameron. 1983. "Movements of collared caribou, Rangifer tarandus, in relation to petroleum development on the arctic slope of Alaska." Can. Field Naturalist. 97(2): 143‑146.

[114]    Caribou with newborn calves avoided developed areas of the oil fields, even when there was little road traffic. J.R Dauand R.D. Cameron. 1986. "Effects of a road system on caribou distribution during calving." Rangifer, Special issue No. 1: 95‑ 10 1. As the Kuparuk and Milne Point fields became more developed, the caribou used them less and less. D.J Cameron, D.J. Reed, J.R. Dau, and W.T. Smith. 1992. "Redistribution of calving caribou in response to oil field development on the arctic slope of Alaska." Arctic 45:338‑342; W.T. Smith, R.D. Cameron, and D.J. Reed. 1994. Distribution and movements of caribou in relation to roads and pipelines, Kuparuk Development Area, 1978‑1990. Alaska Dept. Fish & Game, Wildl. Technical bulletin. 12. 54 pp; R.D. Cameron. 1904. Distribution and productivity of the Central Arctic Herd in relation to petroleum development: case history studies with a nutritional perspective. Fed. Aid in Wildl. Rest Final Rept. Alaska Dept. Fish & Game. Juneau. 35 pp.; R.D. Cameron. E.A. Lenart, D.J. Reed, K.L. Whitten and W.T. Smith. 1995. "Abundance and movements of caribou in the oilfield complex near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska." Rangifer 15(l): 3‑7; C. Nellemann and R.D. Cameron. 1996. "Effects of petroleum development on terrain preferences of calving caribou." Arctic 49(l): 23‑28.

[115]    J. Kurth. 25 October 1995. Memo from refuge manager, Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to Regional Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, on significance of recent Central Arctic census results on proposed oil development on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

[116]    International Porcupine Caribou Management Board. 1993. Sensitive habitats of the Porcupine Caribou Herd. Report by Porcupine Caribou Technical Committee. Available from Porcupine Caribou Management Board, Whitehorse, Yukon.

[117]    British Petroleum ad quoted in P.A. Coates. 1991. p. 195.

[118]    BP Exploration ad. "Because our greatest strides in developing Alaska's energy resources must leave the smallest footprints." Anchorage Daily News. 14 January 199 1. p. H‑2. BP Exploration ad. "Helping create Alaska's future through today's performance... Endicott... the Spirit Continues." Anchorage Daily News. 24 September 1995. p. C‑6.

[119]     EPA points out that causeway monitoring programs were "designed around the premise ‑ basic to ecological study worldwide‑ that suitable habitat is a necessary prerequisite to healthy populations... Such an approach allows mitigation decisions to be made before population‑level impacts have already become irreversible, whereas simple monitoring of populations sizes generally does not" Oil industry claims that habitat changes are not significant, and that population declines are not evident are misleading because population declines may simply be left unmeasured in the habitat‑based monitoring program. B.D. Ross. 1988. Causeways in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Anchorage: EPA 910/9‑88‑218. 32 pp.

[120]    Alaska Forum for Environmental Responsibility. 1997. Poisoning the Well: The Whistleblower Disclosures of Illegal Hazardous Waste Disposal on Alaska's North Slope. Valdez. 18 pp. See also, S. Stephens. "Partnering will not remove poison from the well." Op-ed  Anchorage Daily News. 6 February 1997. p. B-8.

[121]     ARCO Alaska, Inc. 1997. Environmental Evaluation Document, Alpine Development Project. See also U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alaska District. 7 April. 1997. Public Notice Colville River 18, 2‑960874; BP Exploration (Alaska), Inc. 1995. Badami Development Project Permit Application Package.

[122]    Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 1990. Drilling and Waste Management for Alaska's North Slope. p.9. Cited by Natural Resources Defense Council, National Wildlife Federation, and Trustees for Alaska. 1991. Tracking Arctic Oil: The environmental price of drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Background technical document. p.23.

[123]    A.H Lachenbruch and B.V. Marshall. 1986. "Changing climate: geothermal evidence from permafrost in the Alaskan arctic." Science 234:689‑696.

[124]    For contaminated sites, see Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. 21 February 1996. List of Contaminated Sites, Contaminated Sites Remediation Program, Anchorage. Reserve pits associated with both exploratory drill sites and production sites still need adequate cleanup and close‑out. For example, 28 sites are located in the NPRA; J.0. Brunett, G.L. Solin, M.R Carr, R.L. Glass, G.L. Nelson, and R.C. Buchmiller. 1992. Water‑quality and soil assessment at 28 exploratory well sites in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. 1989‑90. Anchorage: US Geological Survey, Open‑File Report 91‑458. For environmental concerns about those sites see, P.J,. Sousa. 18 August 1993. letter from Field Supervisor, Northern Alaska Ecological Services, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fairbanks, to Dennis Timmons, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation on NPRA exploratory reserve pit closeouts. Another 28 North Slope exploratory sites were listed for BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation: ENSR Consulting and Engineering. 1992. Inactive Reserve Pit Program: Approach and Methods. Anchorage. The State listed 160 exploratory and production reserve pits closures for review by 1997; see ADEC. 1995. Drilling Waste Reserve Pits: Closure program for inactive sites. Final Report: Results from North Slope Interagency/ Industry Alliance. However, by 1997, most North Slope reserve pits still have not been cleanup up or closed out.

[125]     J.B. Jackson and F.N. Kurz. 1983. Arctic Summary Report. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service. p. 2.

[126]    In these two rare instances, public outcry forestalled oil activity, but only after leasing. The state bought back leases in Kachemak Bay in the late 1970's; M. Kolman. 11 May 199 1. "Hammond lobbies for Kachemak Park buy back." Anchorage Daily News. p. B‑1. See Alaska Statute Sec. 38.05.140(f) for Bristol Bay leasing limitation which says: "...Within the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve no surface entry permit to develop an oil or gas lease or oil and gas exploration license may be issued on state owned or controlled land until the legislature by appropriate resolution specifically finds that the entry will not constitute danger to the fishery." Kachernak Bay State Wilderness Park was established with the intent of protecting the area from oil and gas leasing but an explicit prohibition on oil and gas leasing is not contained in the statute; instead the law governing this park (AS 41.21.140) states: "in order to protect and preserve this land and water for its unique and exception wilderness value, the park is established and shall be managed as a wilderness park. The land and water lying within the following described parcels is reserved from all uses incompatible with its primary function as a wilderness park."

[127]    From 1989 to the present, Congress has placed successive one‑year moratoria on oil activity in Bristol Bay, the only offshore area where the state has opposed leasing. In 1992, the National Energy Policy Act (H.R_ 776) passed by the U.S. House included language requiring buy backs of Bristol Bay oil leases by the Federal government, but this provision was dropped during conference with the Senate and so was no included in the final bill signed by President Bush on October 24, 1992 (P.L. 102‑486). Oil companies relinquished their Bristol Bay OCS leases when settlement agreements with the Interior Department were signed on May 9, 1995 and July 31, 1995 (pers. comm. 11 July 1997 with T. Huffaker, Librarian, Minerals Management Service. Anchorage).

[128]    35 Fed. Cl. 309; 1996 U.S. Claims. State law prohibits leasing, including exploration licensing, in an area designated as the Bristol Bay Fisheries Reserve (AS 38.05.140(f).

[129]    1,100 miles (1770 km) of Beaufort and Chukchi Sea coast are north of the Arctic Circle. Nearly all of the state lands on the North Slope between the Canning and Colville Rivers have been leased. A The National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska (NPRA) was opened to commercial leasing and development through a Congressional "rider" attached to the Interior Appropriations bill in 1980 (P.L. 96‑514, 12 December 1980). Major lease sales held in the early 1980's offered 22.1 million acres (8.9 million ha) for leasing, out of a total of 23 million acres (9.3 million ha) within NPRA. By 1997, all leases had expired, but in February 1997 the Department of the Interior initiated a new process for leasing for which a decision is expected by August 1998 (62 FR 6797‑6799. 13 February 1997). The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) has leased virtually all of its 4.5 million acres of lands on the North Slope for exploration (ASRC annual reports 1972‑1995). Oil development is not considered a compatible use in Cape Krusenstern National Monument; however, none of the area is designated wilderness and Congress granted a right-of-way through this area for the haul road to Red Dog mine, the largest lead/zinc mine in the world. Similarly, none of Bering Land Bridge National Preserve is statutory wilderness and existing rights‑of‑way might be allowed for oil development uses.

[130]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Anchorage.

[131]    Ibid. p. 18.

[132]    Ibid. p.27.

[133]     Five state oil and gas lease sales outside Cook Inlet and the Beaufort Sea/North Slope were in Gulf of Alaska (1961), Alaska Peninsula (1968), 2 in Copper River (1979, 1982), and Bristol Bay (1984). A controversial 1967 lease sale in Kachemak Bay was ruled invalid by die courts in 1974. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. January 1997. Division of Oil & Gas. Anchorage. pp.59‑61.

[134]   Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. p.61.

[135]    Ibid. p.67.

[136]    "Forcenergy Inc. Joins top 10 Alaska State oil and gas lease holders." Petroleum News Alaska. May 1997. p. 15. At the beginning of this year, the oil companies held 2,680,846 acres (1,084,880 ha) in active state leases (921,423 acres, 372,880 km offshore; 1,759,423 acres, 712,000 ha onshore). Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. p.67.

[137]    Council on Environmental Quality. 1974. OCS Oil and Gas‑ An environmental assessment. A report to the President. Vol. 1. In addition to lack of environmental information cited by the CEQ, the General Accounting Office reported that the October 27, 1977 lower Cook Inlet lease sale had been based on inadequate geological information and lack of assessment of the true resource development potential of the OCS areas, which resulted in government failure to receive fair market value for leases. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1978. Lower Cook Inlet ‑ Another example of more data needed for appraising Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Resources. Report to the Congress. EMD‑7848. 45pp.

[138]    National Research Council. 1994. Environmental information for Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions in Alaska. National Academy Press: Washington, DC.

[139]    3 Gulf of Mexico planning areas total 159.3 million acres (64.5 million ha) compared with Alaska's 5 areas totaling 241million acres (97.5 million ha). Actual areas considered for leasing in Alaska: Beaufort Sea ‑ 14.1 million acres (5.7 million ha); Chukchi Sea ‑ 33.7 million acres(13.6 million ha); Hope Basin ‑ 2.1 million acres 850,000 ha); Gulf of Alaska ‑ 6.4 million acres (2.6 million ha). U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1996. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 1997‑2002. Vol. 1. Herndon, VA. OCS EIS/EA MMS 96‑0043. p. H‑3.

[140]    G.J. Gould, R.M. Karpas, and D.L. Slitor. 1990. Alaska Update: September 1988‑1990. Herndon, VA: MMS 90‑0012:1; U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1990. Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 126 Final Environmental Impact Statement. Anchorage. U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1990. Beaufort Sea Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 124, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Alaska OCS Region, Anchorage. U.S. Minerals Management Service. 18 September 1996. News Release and Miscellaneous Presale Statistics for Beaufort Sale 144, Alaska Region. Anchorage.

[141]    U.S. Minerals Management Service. 15 May 1997. Alaska Region Web Site. "Summary of Alaska Offshore Exploration and Production." p.3.

[142]     U.S. Minerals Management Service. 13 February 1997. List of Active Leases, Alaska OCS Region.

[143]     U.S. Minerals Management Service. 18 September 1996. News Release and Miscellaneous Presale Statistics for Beaufort Sale 144, Alaska Region, Anchorage.

[144]     U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1996. Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 1997‑2002, Final Environmental Impact Statement. Vol. 1. Herndon, VA. p.11‑3.

.

[145]    Ibid., Fig. 2‑4 and 2‑5.

[146]     MMS proposed to offer 26 million acres in the Chukchi Sea planning area. U.S. Minerals Management Service. 2 February 1994. Call for information and nominations and Notice of Intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. 59 FR 4928‑4930. The scoping process for Lease Sale 158 (Gulf of Alaska - Yakutat) began with August 21, 1992 call for information, nominations, and notice of intent to issue environmental impact statement (57 FR 3878) and notice of scoping meetings (57 FR 52793‑52794). Lack of industry interest discussed at 19 June 1997 meeting with conservationists. John Goll, MMS Alaska Regional Director, Anchorage.

[147]    Request for Interest in the U.S./Russia Chukchi Sea Lease Sale (6 September 1994,59 FR 46110). U.S. Minerals Management Service. 6 September l994. News Release: MMS issues request for interest on Russian proposal for Simultaneous Oil and Gas Lease sale in Chukchi Sea and Hope Basin. Anchorage.

[148]    Comments to MMS on proposed sale submitted by Alaska Beluga Whale Committee and 17 other Alaska Native and Conservation organizations on 5 December 1994 (obtain from Greenpeace: Anchorage).

[149]    OCS Sale Cl was held in October 1977; Sale 60 in September 1981 and reoffering Sale RS‑2 in August 1982. 100 leases were issued from those sales, which have been relinquished or have expired. Sale 88 was originally planned for December 1984, was postponed on February 20,1985, and canceled in May 1986. On May 17,1989, the Interior Department delayed Sale 114 due to the Exxon Valdez and Sale 149 replaced that sale. U.S. Minerals Management Service. 1996. Cook Inlet Planning Area, Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Vol. 1. Alaska OCS Region: Anchorage. OCS EIS/EA MMS 95-0066.

[150]    J. Little. "Bigger jobs stall Cook inlet oil, gas lease sale." Anchorage Daily News. 9 July 1997. p.C-3.

[151]    There were three legal challenges to the Joint Federal/State Beaufort Sea sale: North Slope Borough v. Andrus, filed December 7, 1979 (642 F.2d 589); Hammond v. North Slope Borough, filed December 1979 (645 P.2d 750 AK 1982); and Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope v. United States, filed January 29, 1981 (548 F. Supp. 182, AK 1982.

[152]    North Slope Borough v. Watt, filed October 8, 1992 (No. 94‑3672 9th Cir. July 1994) ‑ The borough and environmentalists represented by Trustees for Alaska challenged the adequacy of the biological opinions and the Interior Department's decision to shorten the seasonal drilling restriction to protect the endangered bowhead whale for the Joint Sale and OCS Sale 71. North Slope Borough v. Hodel, filed July 31, 1986 ‑ The borough alleged violation of the Endangered Species Act and other laws when the Interior Department granted two oil companies waivers to OCS Sale 87 leases' seasonal drilling restriction.

[153]     Leasing of the Chukchi Sea area off Pt. Barrow was deferred for two years when the Interior Secretary revised the OCS leasing schedule on March 9, 1984. The Alaska Governor had requested delay of Barrow Arch Lease Sale 85 proposed for February 1985 "to allow further assessment of operations in heavy ice conditions." Industry interest also happened to be low. Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 109 replaced the Barrow Arch Sale 85 and was held in 1988. MMS. 1988. Alaska Update January 1987‑August 1988. Vienna VA: MMS 88‑0073. Controversy over bowhead whales and subsistence led to deferral of 38 blocks off Pt. Barrow, or 218,880 acres out of 7.8 million offered in Sale 87. MMS. 1987. Beaufort Sea Sale 87, Final Environmental Impact Statement. p. 1‑6. In Chukchi Sea Lease Sale 126, MMS dropped six million acres of coastal waters from consideration, but this entire area had already been offered in Lease Sale 109 (and much of it had been leased). Even so, Lease Sale 126 offered over a million acres within the most sensitive spring lead zone for leasing despite intense public opposition.

[154]     State policy on development is from Article VIII, Section 1, Alaska State Constitution. Section 2 also biases decisions toward development: "the legislature shall provide for the utilization, development and conservation of all natural resources belonging to the State, including lands and waters, for the maximum benefit of its people."

[155]     B. Schulte. "U.S. steps up ANWR lobbying effort" Anchorage Daily News. 9 April 199 1. p. B‑2; U.S. Department of Energy. 199 1. National Energy Strategy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. #061‑00‑00754‑7:79.

[156]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. "Preliminary Best Interest Finding on Camden Bay Sale 50." Cited in Alaska Supreme Court Opinion No. 3573. 16 March 1990. Trustees For Alaska, et al. V. State of Alaska.

[157]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. "Preliminary Best Interest Finding on Camden Bay Sale 50." Cited in Alaska Supreme Court, Merit Appeal from the Superior Court, Opening Brief for Appellants, Trustees for Alaska, et al. V. State of Alaska.

[158]     Trustees for Alaska v. State, DNR. 795 P.2d 805, 809 (Alaska 1990), "Camden Bay 1. In a second appeal, the Supreme Court ruled that I'DNR erred in failing to discharge its responsibility to identify known geophysical hazard areas and archeological sites prior to the lease sale;" Trustees for Alaska v. State, DNR. 851 P.2d 1340 (Alaska 1993), "Camden Bay II."

[159]    Trustees for Alaska v. State, DNR. 865 P.2d 745, 749 (Alaska 1993) ‑Demarcation Point.

[160]     "Forcenergy Inc. joins top 10 Alaska state oil and gas lease holders." Petroleum News Alaska. May 1997. p.15.

[161]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption. p.8.

[162]    Ibid. Tables 2B and 2C. pp. 8‑10.

[163]    Ibid. p.4.

[164]     Ibid. p. 19.

[165]    Ibid. Table 6. pp. 26 and 34‑36.

[166]    Ibid. p. 3‑4, 19.

[167]    See R.A. Fineberg. 17 June 1995. Facts about Alaska North Slope Oil Reserves. Fairbanks, Alaska.

[168]    13‑14 billion barrel estimate from, "Tarn oil prospect becomes worthy 'satellite'." Anchorage Daily News. 5 January 1997. p. A‑5. The official state projection of reserves is 12.9 billion barrels total; Alaska Department of National Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption. p.3. The original estimate of reserves at discovery was 9.5 billion barrels of oil; see Department of Energy. 1991. Alaska Oil and Gas. Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity? Table 2‑5. p. 2‑19.

[169]    The State estimated reserves include the Tabasco and K‑ 10 fields (Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption). The Alaska Department of Natural Resources severely underestimates the reserves in this heavy oil field. The "sweet spot" alone is estimated to contain 300‑500 million barrels producible oil, and 3 billion in place ("The Sweet Spot." Anchorage Daily News. 27 October 1996. p.C-1). The entire field may hold 15‑25 billion barrels oil in place. See A. Sullivan. "One oil field environmentalists wart." Wall Street Journal. 31 December 199 1. p. C‑ 1. In 1989, ARCO estimated 13 billion barrels in place at West Sak, with another 7 billion listed as "potential" (Kuparuk River Unit West Sak Overview, AOGCC Presentation." 21August 1989); in 1988 scientists estimated 25 billion barrels of heavy oil in place (M.N. Panda, M. Zhang, D.O. Ogbe, V.A. Kamath, and G.D. Shama. 1988. "Reservoir description of West Sak sands using well logs." Society of Petroleum Engineers Bulletin No. SPE 18759. p. 1) cited by R‑A. Fineberg. 1995. Facts about Alaska North Slope Oil Reserves.

[170]    The official state reserve estimate is 279.8 million, of which .8 million has already been produced (Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. p. 19). This is in sharp contrast to ARCO's estimated 3‑500 million barrels for its phase 1 and 2 development of the "sweet spot" alone which contains 3 billion barrels oil in place. ("The Sweet Spot." Anchorage Daily News. 27 October 1996. p,C‑1). An official with the Alaska Department of Natural Resources estimated that 0.5 - 1 billion barrels could technically be recovered, and G.D. Sharman who conducted a feasibility study for the U.S. Department of Energy estimated that at least 250/a, or 6.25 billion barrels could technically be recovered. ("One oil field environmentalists want." Wall Street Journal. 31 December 199 1. p.B 1). In 1988, an engineering study estimated 25 billion barrels of heavy oil in place (M.N. Panda, M. Zhang, D.O. Ogbe, V.A. Kamath, and G.D. Sharma. 1988. "Reservoir description of West Sak sands using well logs." Society of Petroleum Engineers Bulletin No. SPE 18759, p. 1). Estimates of heavy oil in place for the West Sak and Ugnu heavy oil zones range from 21‑36 million barrels (C‑M. Naske and H.E. Slotnick. 1987. Alaska: A history of the 49th state second edition. University of Oklahoma Press: Norman. p. 269.

[171]    US. DOE. 1991. Alaska Oil and Gas.‑ Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity? Table 2‑5. p. 2‑18; see also "One oil field environmentalists want." Wall Street Journal. 3 December 199 1. p. B‑ 1.

[172]    Includes Sag River reserves. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and Projected oil and gas consumption. p. 19.

[173]    "BP eyes hard‑to‑reach crude." Anchorage Daily News. 23 May 1997. p.E‑1. The State says that 5.1 million barrels has already been produced from this field; it lumps figures for reserves with Milne Point field. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1996. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption. p.22.

[174]    "Oil find caps BP exec's era: New well near Milne Point small, easy to develop, company says." Anchorage Daily News. 11 January 1994. p.B-1.Production began at the Cascade field in August 1996 (Petroleum News Alaska. 5‑25 Aug. 1996. P‑8).

[175]   Endicott field reserves include the Ivishak and Alapah pools (6 million barrels oil; BLM Web Page "Upper Ellesmerian Sequence Play." 8 February 1997).

[176]    Includes 0.641 million barrels already produced from West Niakuk field. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption. p.22.

[177]    Production to date: North Prudhoe Bay State = 2.1 million barrels; West Beach = 1.9 million barrels. The state does not provide separate reserve estimates. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption." p. 19.

[178]    Ibid p.27.

[179]     "Meet Alaska: BP sees more oil and the slope: BP's Richard L. Olver sees another 5 billion barrels, not counting ANWR." Alaska Oil & Gas Reporter (Alaska Journal of Commerce). 19 February 1996. p. 13.

[180]     "Alpine field estimates increased from 250‑300 million barrels to 365 million." Petroleum News Alaska. May 1997. p. 1. Official state projection is 290 million barrels oil, 60 billion cubic feet of natural gas (Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption p.4).

[181]    BP estimates 200 million bbls, ARCO says 50 million bbls. . "Tarn oil prospect becomes worthy 'satellite'." Anchorage Daily News. 5 January 1997. p. A-5.

[182]    Oil resource estimated at 150 million barrels oil by U.S. DOE. 1991. Alaska Oil and Gas: Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity? Table 2‑5, p. 2‑18, 2‑19. Since the North Star field development plans were announced, the highest estimate given is 145 million barrels oil; "Brighter future foreseen for North Slope." Anchorage Daily News. 5 January 1997. p. A‑ 1. The official state projection is 144 million barrels of oil and 450 billion cubic feet natural gas (Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption p. 4).

[183]    U.S. Minerals Management Service. 5 May 1997. "BP confirms Oil discovery at Liberty Prospect." Alaska Region, Web Page. "BP announces plans to recover oil from new Liberty prospect," Alaska Journal of Commerce. 12 May 1997. p.9.

[184]    The Ugnu field is a heavy oil sand reservoir overlaying Kuparuk and West Sak. U.S. DOE. 199 1. Alaska Oil and Gas: Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity? Table 2‑5, p.2‑18.

[185]    "Test data stir hopes for oil field." Anchorage Daily News. 14 March 1997. p.A-1.

[186]    U.S. Bureau of Land Management Alaska Region, Northern District; NPRA Web Page 7 March 1997. Fig. 1, Map showing petroleum deposits of northern Alaska.

[187]    U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Alaska Oil and Gas. Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity? Table 2‑5, p.2‑18.

[188]    Ibid. Table 2‑5, p.2‑18.

[189]    Ibid. Table 2‑5, p.2‑18.

[190]   Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption. p.41.

[191]    U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Table 2‑5. pp. 2‑18.

[192]    U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Table 2‑5. pp. 2‑18. BLM NPRA Web Page. 7 March 1997. Fig. 1, Map showing petroleum deposits of northern Alaska.

[193]    U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Table 2‑5. pp. 2‑18. BLM NPRA Web Page. 7 March 1997. Fig. 1, Map showing petroleum deposits of northern Alaska.

[194]     U.S. Department of Energy. 199 1. Table 2‑5. pp. 2‑18, 2‑19.

[195]    Ibid. Table 2‑5. pp. 2‑18.

[196]  Ibid.

[197] Ibid.  Table 2‑5, p. 2‑18, 2‑19. The latest state estimate is 200 million barrels oil (gas condensate) and 3.5 trillion cubic feet natural gas. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and Projected oil and gas consumption. p. 4.

[198]     State of Alaska gives Flaxman Island resources with Pt. Thomson field. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and projected oil and gas consumption. p.4.

[199]    300 million barrels oil (gas condensate) and 5 trillion cubic feet (142 billion cubic meters) natural gas in Pt. Thomson field, according to U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Table 2‑5. p.2‑18. The state of Alaska projects 200 million barrels oil (gas condensate) and 3.5 trillion cubic feet (99 billion cubic meters) gas in Pt. Thomson and Flaxman Island, Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. p. 4.

[200]    U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Alaska Oil and Gas: Energy Wealth or Vanishing Opportunity. pp. 3‑39.

[201]     "Union Texas looking at development scenarios for Kuvlum prospect." Petroleum News Alaska. January 1997. p. 11.

[202]    U.S. Department of Energy. 1991.

[203]   Y. Rosen. "Quest to wring more oil from Alaska North Slope." Christian Science Monitor. 8 October 1996. p.4.

[204]    "No shortage at Prudhoe: oil reserves will keep going and going, debate reveals." Fairbanks Daily News‑Miner. 2 July 1997. p.A-1; State gives 7 billion barrel estimate. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption 1997. p.4.

[205]     See R.A. Fineberg. 17 June 1995. Facts about Alaska North Slope Oil Reserves. Fairbanks.

[206]   Ibid.

[207]    Fairbanks Daily News‑Miner. 2 July 1995. Wall Street Journal. 25 October 1995.

[208]     See industry documents submitted as sworn testimony to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission for Prudhoe Bay hearings. 16 May 1995. attachments to Richard A. Fineberg's Rebuttal to "Summary Critique" of James E. Eason. 28 August 1995.

[209]    See "Advisors see Alaska's oil output rising." Anchorage Daily News. 30 March 1995. p.A-1; "Industry Outlook: Cambridge Energy Research thinks Alaska production will increase again." Alaska Oil & Gas Reporter. 17 February 1997. p. 15.

[210]    "Brighter future foreseen for North Slope." Anchorage Daily News. 5 January 1997. A‑1.

[211]     "Tarn prospect becomes worthy 'satellite'." Anchorage Daily News. 5 January 1997. p. A‑5.

[212]     "North Slope Satellite Projects Spark Alaska Exploration." 26 May 1997. Oil and Gas Journal. 95:2 1.

[213]     "Meet Alaska: BP sees more oil and the slope: BP's Richard L. Olver sees another 5 billion barrels, not counting Alaska Department of Natural Resources." Alaska Oil & Gas Reporter. 19 February 1996. p. 13. BP's estimated new potential of 5 billion barrels includes I billion from known heavy oil resources, more than I billion from enhanced oil recovery, and 3 billion from development of satellite accumulations and new drilling from known resources in and around the existing fields; J.A. Palmer. op‑ed by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. External affairs director. "BP says state incentives will set the pace for North Slope oil development." Anchorage Daily News." 7 February 1997. p.B-8.

[214]    R. Thomas. "The Deal Maker (Charlie Cole): Brisk settlement pace of $1.5 million a day finds defenders, critics. Anchorage Daily News. 16 May 1993. p. A‑1,A‑8.

[215]    R. Thomas. "BP gets break on its tax bills." Anchorage Daily News. 9 December 1993. p A‑ 1.

[216]    D. Miller. 2 March 1997. "Lobbyists set spending record in '96". Fairbanks Daily News‑Miner. p. A‑1.

[217]    Ibid. p.A-1, A‑6.

[218]    D. Miller. "Lawmakers aim $1 million at ANWR boosting." Anchorage Daily News. 16 May 1997. p.B-6.

[219]    H. Jung. "State lifts spill‑response tax: 2‑cents‑a‑barrel levy on oil suspended; 3 cents for prevention unaffected." Anchorage Daily News. 22 February 1995. p. D‑1.

[220]    S. Jones. "Bill tries to uncap royalties: Knowles seeking development boost." Anchorage Daily News. 24 February 1995. p. B‑1; 1. Mader. "Royalty break passes: House plan cuts state share 75%." Anchorage Daily News. 20 May 1995. p. D‑ 1; S. Jones. "Knowles signs oil measure: Law allows cuts in state's royalty." Anchorage Daily News. 20 June 1995. p. B‑ 1.

[221]    S. Jones. "Knowles signs oil measure: Law allows cuts in state's royalty." Anchorage Daily News. 20 June 1995. p. B‑1.

[222]   "Royalty relief, leasing, exploration may help maintain Cook Inlet production." Oil & Gas Journal. I July 1996. p. 135. Oil and Gas Journal said that Unocal applied for relief at only 2 platforms. However, Unocal's application was for the same relief for all 10 platforms (the lion's share of Unocal's Cook Inlet activity), regardless of how well they were producing. In a letter from the Division of Oil & Gas Director to Unocal on 8 May 1997, Alaska Department of Natural Resources denied the mechanism for royalty relief proposed by Unocal, said that each platform had to be evaluated separately, and proposed using an alternate royalty relief mechanism used by MMS that will only apply to those wells that are truly marginal (not those which would produce anyway, nor those which are so bad they wouldn't be economic even with the relief) ‑ only some of the 6 platforms deemed marginal are expected to qualify. Unocal has not yet responded to the State's proposal. (pers. comm 24 July 1997, William Nebesky, petroleum economist for Division of Oil & Gas, Alaska Department of Natural Resources: Anchorage).

[223]    The discovery lease (Bergshrund No. 1) covers about 16% of the Alpine field area. S. Jones. "Arco wants a break at Alpine." Anchorage Daily News. 26 November 1996. p. D‑ 1.

[224]    D. Atwood. "State, BP join to battle suit. Anchorage Daily News. 10 April 1997. p. E‑1. B. Melzer. "Northstar appeal advances." Anchorage Daily News. 19 June 1997. p. F‑ 1.

[225]     Governor Tony Knowles.  Much to gain, little to lose in Northstar proposal.  Op-ed in Anchorage Daily News.  9 April 1996.

[226]     "News in brief" Petroleum News Alaska. July 1997. p.3.

[227]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Oil and Gas. 1997. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. p.3.

[228]    Alaska Statute sec. 38.05.131‑134. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Division of Oil and Gas. p. 16.

[229]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Oil and Gas. 1997. Five-Year Oil and Gas Leasing Program. p.10-­12.

[230]    S. 395 which ended the oil export ban and gave royalty relief for offshore producers in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico passed the U.S. Senate on November 14,1995; the companion bill in House which received hearings was H.R_ 70. See PL, 104‑58. D. Morgan. "Despite rising fuel prices, Clinton lifts ban on Alaskan oil exports." Washington Post. 29 April 1996. p. A6.

[231]    Marlowe, H. 7 February 1996. Testimony to U.S. Department of Commerce on Presidential Finding on Alaska Oil Exports. Washington DC.  Wilson, Gillette, & Co. June 1994. "Consequences of exporting Alaska North Slope Crude Oil." Prepared for the Coalition to Keep Alaska Oil. Washington, DC.

[232]    February shipment reported by BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 1996 Report to Alaskans. See, also, "First oil tanker of Alaska Oil Heads Overseas." Alaska Oil and Gas Journal. 17 June 1996. BP signed an agreement with LG‑Caltex Oil Corp. of South Korea in November 1996 which will be "automatically renewed each year unless either side raises objections, said the refiner." "South Korea refinery will become largest importer of Alaska crude: LG‑Caltex Oil Corp. Signs agreement with BP to import 30,000 barrels of ANS crude per day, will reduce reliance on Middle East crude." Petroleum News Alaska. 18 November ‑ 5 December 1996. p.B 1.

[233]    "China, BP make deal for oil." Anchorage Daily News. 25 March 1997. p.E-1.

[234]    C. Del Valle. "Highly ignitable: U.S. Oil to China." Business Week 19 May 1997. p.8.

[235]    D. Atwood. "Exports soar: Alaska petroleum, minerals, seafood sales up sharply." Anchorage Daily News. 19 June 1997. P. F‑1.

[236]     "News in Brief. Exxon has shipped a cargo of 1.8 million barrels of Alaska North Slope crude to its Japanese affiliate general Sekiyu." Petroleum News Alaska. July 1997. p.3.

[237]    D. Whitney. 22 November 1996. "Producers press for relief Oil companies want credit to case risk of horizontal drilling." p. D‑ 1

[238]    "Activity review of US regulatory, legislative issues." Offshore Magazine. 57(5). 1 May 1997.

[239]    Ibid.

[240]    Kuvhun Unit ‑ Unit operator is Union Texas Petroleum, but other lease interests include Chevron USA Production Co, BP Exploration, Alaska, Conoco, Inc., Exxon Corp, Elf Exploration, Inc. Petrofina Delaware, Inc., and Phillips Petroleum Company. Kuvlurn Unit Agreement, MMS public copy (dated 5 May 97, approval of 1997 status report). Hammerhead Unit ‑ Shell Frontier is operator and other owners are Unocal and Amoco), MMS Hammerhead Unit Agreement OCS‑Y 0849 Public File, 5/19/97 most recent documents.

[241]    R. Meehan and T.W. Jennings. 1988. Characterization and value ranking of water bird habitat on the Colville River delta, Alaska. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service: Anchorage, AK. 105pp.

[242]     P.C. Craig. 1984. "Fish use of coastal waters of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea: A Review. "' Transactions of the American Fisheries Society. 113:265‑282.

[243]    L.K. Bright Acting Field Supervisor, Letter of 2 January 1997 from Northern Alaska Ecological Services, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Fairbanks to Colonel Peter A. Topp, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on proposed Alpine Development Project.

[244]    Trustees for Alaska, et al. 6 June 1997. Comment letter on Section 404 permit for ARCO's Alpine project (Colville River 18; 2‑960874) to Colonel Peter A. Topp, District Engineer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

[245]    D. Hoffman, D. Libbey, and G. Spearman. 1978 (revised 1988). Nuiqsut.‑ land use values through time in the Nuiqsut area. North Slope Borough and Anthropology and Historic Preservation Section of the Cooperative Park Studies Unit, University of Alaska: Fairbanks. p.20.

[246]    BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 27 March 1997. Northstar Development Project: Final Project Description. Submitted to State and Federal agencies. for preparation of environmental impact statement.

[247]    W.F. Weeks. and G. Weller. 1984. "Offshore oil in the Alaskan Arctic." Science. 255: 371‑378. MMS. 1984. Diaper Field Lease Sale 87 Final Environmental Impact Statement: 111‑17.

[248]    Weeks and Weller, 1984: 378.

[249]    P. Epler. "North Slope pipe breaks, spills crude." Anchorage Daily News. 10 November 1989.

Zemansky, G. 1983. Water Quality Regulation during Construction of the Trans‑Alaska Oil Pipeline System. Seattle: University of Washington. PhD Dissertation. 2 Vols.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1974. OCS Oil and Gas‑ An Environmental Assessment. Vol.l.p.73.

General Accounting Office. July l.991. Trans‑Alaska Pipeline: Regulators have not ensured that government requirements are being met. Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Water, Power, and Offshore Energy Resources, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED‑91‑89.

[250]    BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc. 27 March 1997. Northstar Development Project: Final Project Description. Submitted to State and Federal agencies for preparation of environmental impact statement, Table 1.2‑1, Northstar gravel fill and extraction.

[251]    This field is located within 3 blocks BP got in Sale 144 for $10.6 million. Alaska Journal of Commerce. 12 May 1997 "BP announces plans to recover oil from new Liberty prospect" p.9.

[252]    Dunton, K.H. 1984. "An annual carbon budget for an arctic kelp community." pp. 311‑325 in P.W. Barnes, D.M. Schell, and E. Reirnnitz, eds. The Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. J.L. Mohr, N.J. Wilimovsky, and E.Y. Dawson. 1957. "An Arctic Alaskan kelp bed." Arctic 10: 45‑52.

[253]    "North Slope Report: Badami field pads, roads completed, drilling to start in September." Alaska Oil & Gas Reporter (Alaska Journal of Commerce). 21 July 1997. p.3.

[254]    Ibid.

[255]   "Arco strikes it big at Alpine." Anchorage Daily News. 3 October 1996.

[256]   Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior. 13 February 1997. "Notice of intent to prepare an integrated activity plan/environmental impact statement on Management of the Northeastern portion of the National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska, request for information, and call for nominations and comments." 62 FR 6797‑6799.

[257]    J.G. King and J.I. Hodges. 1979. "A preliminary analysis of goose banding on Alaska's Arctic Slope." in Managementand biology of Pacific Flyway geese: a symposium. Ed. R.L. Jarvis and J.C. Bartonek. Oregon State University Book Stores: Corvallis. pp. 176‑188.  K.S. Bollinger and D.V. Dcrksen. 1996. "Demographic characteristics of molting black brant near Teshekpuk Lake, Alaska.  J Field Omithol. 67(l): 141‑158.

[258]     M.W. Weller, K.C. Jensen, E.J. Taylor, M.W. Miller, K.S. Bollinger, D.V. Derksen, D. Eslcr, and C. Markon. 1994.  Assessment of shoreline vegetation in relation to use by molting black brant Branta bernicla nigricans on the Alaska Coastal Plain." Biological Conservation. 70: 219‑225.

[259]    R‑F. Dworsky and J.H. Ducker. 1991. The National Petroleum Reserve‑Alaska: A Reader. Bureau of Land Management, Alaska State Office, Anchorage: BLM‑AK‑PT‑91‑004‑1120‑910‑Rev9l.

[260]    P.J. Kinney. 1995. Environmental characterization and biological utilization of Peard Bay. Final Reports of PrincipalInvestigators, Outer Continental She4(Environmental Assessment Program. Anchorage: NOAA, OCS Study MMS 85‑0102.   S.R. Johnson, P.G. Connors, G.J. Divoky, R. Meehan, and D.W. Norton. 1987. "Coastal and marine Birds." pp. 131‑145 in P.R. Becker ed. Diaper Field Synthesis. Anchorage: NOAA.

R.A. Davis and D.H. Thomson. 1984. "Marine Mammals." pp. 47‑79 in J.C. Truett ed. Barrow Arch Synthesis. Anchorage:NOAA.

K. Hazard 1988. "Beluga whale." pp. 195‑235 in J.W. Lentfer ed. Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska: Species accounts withresearch and management recommendations. Washington, D.C.: Marine Mammal Commission.

L.T. Quakenbush. 1988. "Spotted seal." pp. 107‑124 in J.W. Lentfer ed. Selected Marine Mammals of Alaska. Washington,DC: Marine Mammal Commission.

[261]    Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1997. Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption. p. 4.

[262]    Ibid. p.21.

[263]    Liquefied petroleum gas usually refers to propane and butane, whereas natural gas liquids can also include other hydrocarbon fractions which are gaseous as reservoir temperatures and pressures but are recoverable by condensation, such as methane, ethane, and pentanes. Alaska Department of Natural Resources. Division of Oil and Gas. 1997. Historical and Projected Oil and Gas Consumption. p. 65; Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 1996. p. 39.

[264]    "Is Point Thomson Next? Linking the second jewel in a string of pearls." Petroleum News Alaska. February 1997. p. 11.

[265]     TAGS Environmental Review Committee. August 1994. North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline: Coming soon to a theater near you? Status Report. Program of the Alaska Conservation Foundation: Anchorage.

[266]     K. Rich. "Natural‑gas task force begins work." Anchorage Daily News. 20 June 1997. p. B‑1.

[267]    TAGS Environmental Review Committee. May 1995. North Slope Natural Gas Pipeline. The Western Route: A New Threat to Northwest Alaska Special Report. Program of the Alaska Conservation Foundation: Anchorage.

[268]    "Gas to Oil: A gusher for the millennium?" Business Week 19 May 1997. p. 130.

[269]    Oil and Gas Journal. 14 April 1997. Editorial: "New thoughts on oil supply." Vol. 95:15.

[270]     R. Fineberg. 1996. Pipeline in Peril. p. 230.

[271]     Ibid.

[272]     Ibid. p.2.31. See also U.S.DOE. 1991. Alaska Oil and Gas: Energy wealth or vanishing opportunity? And U.S. General Accounting Office. April 1993. Trans‑Alaska Pipeline: Projections of Long‑term viability are uncertain. Report to the Chairman, Committee on Natural Resources, House of Representatives. GAO/RCED‑93‑69.

[273]    The most recent MMS estimate of economically recoverable oil resources for the Alaskan OCS totals 3.68 billion barrels of oil (Beaufort Sea 2.27 bbo; Chukchi Sea 1. 14 bbo; Cook Inlet 0.27 bbo); K.W. Sherwood, J.D. Craig and L.W. Cook. 1995 "Undiscovered Oil and Gas Potential of the Alaska Federal Offshore." pp. 10‑2 1. In Arctic Research of the United States: 1995 National Resource Assessment. Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. Each year the United States consumes 6.46 barrels of oil and petroleum products; U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. "Petroleum Supply Monthly." February 1997. p. 35. Natural Resources Defense Council. 1991. The Ocean Protection Act and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge Oil and Gas Estimates. Cited in Natural Resources Defense Council. 1997. Diminishing Returns: Oil projections meet economic realities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Washington DC.

[274]    Natural Resources Defense Council. 1997. Diminishing Returns: Oil projections meet economic realities in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.  Washington, DC.