Murkowski clears up questions about ANWR support

April 3, 2000

Ms. Georgia Rodgers
Alaska Youth for Environmental Action
Anchorage, Alaska

Dear Georgia:

Thank you for your letter to the Anchorage Daily News expressing your opposition to oil exploration in the Arctic coastal plain and asking why I favor Congress moving ahead to authorize a lease sale.

First, a little history. When Congress in 1980 more than doubled the size of the Arctic Wildlife Range they created a 19 million-acre refuge -- an area the size of the state of South Carolina. They specifically designated 8 million acres of the area as permanent wilderness and another 9.5 million acres purely as a refuge.

These areas will not be developed under any circumstances. But the future of the remaining 1.5 million acres -- the so called 1002 Area set aside for study -- was left to the decision of a future Congress because geologists stated it was the most likely area for a major oil discovery in North America.

As you know, America now imports 56 percent of the crude oil we use daily. In 1973, we had a fuel shortage caused by that year's Arab oil embargo. We had lines of cars waiting at gas stations nationwide. Back then we were just 36 percent dependent on imports. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts that even with greater conservation and use of alternative fuels, we will be 65 percent dependent in just 15 to 20 years.

Alaska has supplied the nation with almost 20 percent of its domestic oil production for the past 23 years since the Prudhoe Bay oil field began to produce. For a good portion of that time, Prudhoe Bay was producing 2 million barrels of oil per day, but now it is down to about 1.1 million barrels. Prudhoe Bay production was estimated to be about 10 billion barrels total when the field was confirmed in 1969, yet it has now produced more than 12 billion barrels and the estimates are that it will continue to produce oil well into the next decade.

Alaska s economy is fueled by oil. Roughly 80 percent of the state's $2.3 billion general fund budget is funded by oil taxes, as is the state's rural schools and our university system. The list goes on and on. Your state dividend of just over $1,500 comes from oil royalties. And I know you recognize that oil and energy service jobs provide employment for thousands of Alaskans.

Without a strong economy, we will not be able to have good schools and a good University system, take care of our elderly, meet the needs of rural Alaskans or attract young people like you to stay in state. Just in the past eight years some 32,000 young Alaskans aged 18-34 have had to leave the state in search of education and good-paying jobs. Think how much worse things will become if the state's oil industry withers away.

By 2010, oil flow from the original Prudhoe Bay field is predicted to drop to 315,000 barrels -- just 16 percent of its flow as recently as 1991. We have to strike a balance to allow responsible resource development of our oil and gas, timber, fish, coal and minerals and use our best technology and American spirit to protect our environment.

We know the technology used at Prudhoe Bay is 30 years old -- yet it's the most environmentally sound oil field in the world. Now we have the ability to do an even better job elsewhere in the Arctic. We propose to limit exploration to the eight months of winter. That is a time when no caribou are in the area. If no oil is found during exploration then the area will not be affected.

If oil is found in abundance, then the entire development using the new technologies of ice roads and smaller oil drilling pads, will affect about 2,000 acres. That is less than half the size of Anchorage International Airport.

Let me try and answer some of your other points. The Arctic coastal plain runs more than 1,100 miles from the Canadian border to north of Kotzebue. In fact only 14 percent of the Arctic coastal plain is state land and open for oil and gas leasing. Some 943 miles will remain closed to development. Those that say that 95 percent of the plain is already open are wrong, because they assume that oil development will be permitted throughout the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.

But just last year we had proof that the coastal area will remain closed when Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt removed an area along the coast the size of the State of Rhode Island from prospective oil and gas leasing.

The coastal plain also is far from a wilderness. We have the Village of Kaktovik and its 222 residents living in the plain, as are a number of old radar sites.

There is a fear that the 129,000-member Porcupine caribou herd will be affected. But Alaskans have learned a lot about caribou protection over the years. In the neighboring Prudhoe Bay field, the herd has tripled in size to 19,700 animals, compared to just 6,000 in 1978, even though the Prudhoe Bay fields cover the calving area for the Central Arctic herd.

There is no hunting allowed in the field. In Canada the caribou cross the Dempster Highway, built across their migration route, without effect. They pass the aftermath of the 89 exploratory oil wells that Canada drilled on its side of the border in the 1960s -- all dry holes.

Some worry about the effects of development on the polar bears. First, of Alaska's 2,000 polar bears, only 15 bears have been found to den in the 1002 Area over a recent 11-year period. Since nearly all polar bear denning occurs on pack ice, onshore development should have little impact on the bears. They certainly will be safer in Alaska than Canada, where they are hunted for sport.

In Alaska non-Native hunting of the mammals is prohibited. And grizzly bears, if Prudhoe Bay is any guide, may actually benefit from development. Grizzly bear populations have actually increased by 15 bears since oil development began at Prudhoe Bay. Bird populations¿ also have flourished in Prudhoe Bay since oil construction started.

Some express concern that the Arctic reserve would only fuel America's energy needs for just six months. First, that assumes that all other sources of oil dry up overnight -- an impossibility. Second, it ignores the current estimates by the U.S. Geological Survey that there is an excellent chance that the reserve contains 16 billion barrels of recoverable oil, five times more than some suggest. Such a find would represent all the oil we currently import from Saudi Arabia for 30 years!

The Gwichin Natives in Alaska do oppose opening of the reserve and they are supported by the Sierra Club and other environmental groups who primarily use the issue to increase their membership and raise funds. Their concerns about oil exploration, however, are recent.

In 1984 they proposed to lease all 1,799,927 acres of their land for oil development with no protections for wildlife. Unfortunately, there was little interest because their lands were not believed to contain oil.

I am certainly concerned about protecting our land. I believe that we can develop the Arctic without any significant environmental damage. But I also care about the global environment. The reason for opening the refuge is to protect the world's environment, to reduce the need for America to import ever more oil on foreign-built tankers -- 30 a day, 10,000 a year -- sucking oil from far more fragile places, such as the Columbian rainforest.

Let me leave you with one additional thought. Not only does Alaska need to replace our dwindling supplies from Prudhoe Bay to fund state services and provide Alaskans jobs, but America needs for us to do so.

Currently, we import 700,000 barrels per day of oil from Iraq -- more than twice the 300,000 barrels we imported in 1998. Iraq is our fastest growing source of imports, yet just nine years ago we fought a war in the Persian Gulf to keep Saddam Hussein from conquering the oil fields of Kuwait and possibly Saudi Arabia. That war cost 117 American servicemen their lives, caused 437 Americans to be wounded and 23 to be taken prisoner.

American taxpayers since have spent $10 billion to enforce no-fly zones and to keep Hussein from attacking his neighboring countries. It's ironic that we are now looking to him for relief from tight energy supplies. I recall the remarks of former Senator Mark Hatfield of Oregon who was a pacifist. He said, "I would vote for opening the Arctic rather than send Americans into battle in an unfriendly nation over oil."

I hope my letter helps clarify my reasons for supporting development in our state. I would be happy to share further with you more details if you wish. Better yet, if you would invite me, I'd be happy to meet with your Alaska Youth for Environmental Action group on my next trip home.

Thank you for your letter.

Sincerely,

Frank H. Murkowski, U.S. Senator, Alaska