January 12, 2001
Oil Drilling in Alaska Looms
As Legislative Test for Bush
By JOHN J. FIALKA and CHIP CUMMINS
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
WASHINGTON -- One of President-elect George W. Bush's first big
legislative tests will be whether to allow oil and gas exploration in a pristine
Alaska wilderness. It will be a hotly contested affair, full of the sound of
impassioned rhetoric and the fury of muscular lobbies in combat.
The incoming administration, backed by the state of Alaska and the oil
industry, has made the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge an
emblem of economic and national security. As the nation grapples with high
fuel prices, natural-gas shortages and an electrical-power crisis in the
West, the president-elect and Gale Norton, his pick to head the Interior
Department, have called tapping the Alaska refuge an important way to
provide more fuel from reliable domestic sources.
The issue likely will be a major one in Ms. Norton's confirmation hearings
next week. "I was amazed the other day somebody was getting on her
because she wanted to drill in [the refuge]," Mr. Bush said. "Well, guess
who else thinks we ought to, in order to make sure we've got enough
energy for the nation? The president-elect."
The Clinton administration has depicted the prospect of drilling as a kind of
environmental Armageddon, the ultimate battle between the forces of
greed and those who favor protecting a fragile Arctic environment. "They
are advocating sticking an oil well right smack in the middle of the wildest
place left in America," said Jamie Rappaport Clark, the head of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. "It's tugging at a thread that could unravel the
entire 19-million acre Arctic Refuge and a lot else as well."
About an 8% share of the South Carolina-sized refuge, along the northern
edge of the state on the Beaufort Sea, would be subject to drilling under
Mr. Bush's plan. The Energy Department's latest estimate is that it could
produce 10.3 billion barrels of oil, which would make it the last major
reservoir of untouched oil in the U.S. Since oil is often found with natural
gas, there could be an abundance of that, too, though there are no firm
estimates.
The national debate is mirrored to some extent locally, where two native
tribes who live on the refuge are split on drilling in the 110-mile coastal
plain in question. Tales of the Inupiat, who have worked with oil
companies, and the Gwich'in, who fear ecological destruction, will
undoubtedly be woven into this year's debate.
The 8,000 Inupiat Eskimos, who live mostly in small villages along the plain
where livelihoods are dependent on whaling, know some of the refuge's
secrets. "When I was growing up, I remember my father and mother and
aunts and uncles talking about gathering oil-soaked peat to make fires.
There were natural-gas seeps all over the place," said 50-year-old Ben
Nageak.
The Inupiat are eager to see more drilling, as long as it remains on shore
and doesn't interfere with their whaling. A regional corporation controlled
by the Inupiat teamed up with Chevron Corp. and the state of Alaska to
drill one exploratory well near Kaktovik in 1986. What, if anything, was
found remains a closely guarded secret. "You never put all your cards on
the table, you know," said Mr. Nageak, a community leader.
The coastal plain also is home to a 130,000-member herd of Porcupine
Caribou. For centuries these nomadic animals have been the source of
food and clothing both for the Inupiat and for the Gwich'in, a tribe of
Athabascan Indians who live along the refuge's southern edge. The
Gwich'in travel throughout the area hunting the caribou, and they want no
oil-seeking intruders.
"We would lose our entire way of life," said Faith Gemmill, a
spokeswoman for the tribe. "It wouldn't happen right away, but it would
happen." She says the drilling would adversely affect an area where the
herd prefers to have its calves, driving the caribou away. The Inupiat, on
the other hand, don't believe such a threat exists.
Washington has had periodic spasms of political awareness of the refuge
area, beginning in the 1950s when the late William O. Douglas, a Supreme
Court justice and ardent conservationist, convinced President Eisenhower
to start establishing a refuge there by protecting eight million acres.
In 1980, Congress expanded the refuge to include the coastal plain, but
exempted it from further wilderness protections until further studies were
made of its oil potential. Since then, the oil industry and Alaskan politicians
have staged several unsuccessful efforts to get Congress to declare the
area open for exploration.
In the first attempt, prospects for the pro-drilling forces looked great until
March 24, 1989. That's when an Alaskan oil tanker, the Exxon Valdez,
ran aground and spilled 11 million barrels of crude oil. Televised images of
dying shore birds covered with the black goop sank the proposed
legislation.
In 1991, when oil prices shot up during the Gulf War, Alaska and the oil
industry launched another effort amid a clamor for more domestic sources
of crude. On paper they had the votes to pass it, but not enough to
overcome a threatened Democrat filibuster. The plan died again.
Roger Herrera, a political strategist for Arctic Power, the lobby formed by
Alaska business interests to push the issue, says the pro-drilling forces
have been careful to proceed only when the political environment looked
good for their cause. "My side can't ever afford to lose a vote on this
issue," he says, because the question could be perceived as politically
dead.
But while Arctic Power has won the battles in House and Senate votes, it
has so far lost the wars, most recently from a presidential veto. In 1995,
for example, when debate over drilling in the refuge erupted again, Arctic
Power and Republican leaders attached their bill to a budget reconciliation
package, a ploy which made it filibuster-proof. Putting parts of the plain up
for lease to oil companies, supporters argued, would reduce the federal
deficit by $1.3 billion.
But Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt ridiculed the promise of refuge oil
riches. "For one thing, it assumes that oil prices will be more than $30 a
barrel in the year 2000. What are the chances of that?" he asked.
President Clinton disliked the Alaska refuge amendment and some 80
other measures tucked into the huge bill, so he vetoed it.
Last January -- despite Mr. Babbitt's ridicule -- oil did hit $30 a barrel and
the refuge drilling lobby refloated the proposal. By September, when crude
reached $37.22 a barrel and gas prices were soaring, Mr. Bush was
pushing the measure on the campaign trail. Late last year by a 51-49 vote,
the Senate passed a budget resolution that contained projections of future
government income from leasing land in the refuge for exploration. It
amounted to a political test-run showing support for the idea, but the vote
wasn't legally binding. The end of President Clinton's term will remove
another obstacle, the veto threat.
Another reason for the new attempt is Alaska's need for more income, one
reason why both the state's Democratic governor and
Republican-dominated legislature support drilling. With the price of oil and
production from the fields around Prudhoe Bay both dropping, falling
revenues raise the ugly prospect for politicians of instituting a state income
tax in a state that has managed without one.
The next move here, according to veteran Alaska refuge watchers, will be
another filibuster-proof budget reconciliation measure directing the U.S.
Interior Department to raise money from leasing land for drilling in the
refuge. Informal polling shows a Senate vote will be extremely tight, and
success in the House looks doubtful.
"This will be an interesting battle," says Bill Meadows, president of the
Wilderness Society, which has just delivered 800,000 post cards to the
White House urging that the coastal plain be placed in perpetual
wilderness. "If I were in the president-elect's shoes, I would not like to
lead with anything so controversial."
Write to John J. Fialka at john.fialka@wsj.com and Chip Cummins at
chip.cummins@wsj.com |
