Guest Columnist: Ban on oil production shouldn't be Valdez's legacy

Web posted Mar. 23 at 08:12 PM

By Jim Whitaker
Augusta Chronicle Guest Columnist

(Editor's note: The author, an editorial writer for The Augusta Chronicle, is a former editor for the Juneau (Alaska) Empire.)

It was billed as unsinkable.

But the Titanic, the biggest ocean liner in the world at the time, sank on April 14, 1912, after slamming into a massive iceberg during its maiden voyage from England to New York. More than 1,500 of the 2,200 passengers and crew died, making it one of the most tragic maritime accidents in history.

However, shipping was not banned in the tragedy's wake.

In fact, the accident prompted better safety rules, improved maritime engineering and a renewed respect for the unforgiving demands of Mother Nature.

Ten years ago today, the tanker Exxon Valdez struck Bligh reef in Alaska's Prince William Sound spilling 11 million gallons of North Slope oil, tragically killing birds, marine mammals and fish in one of the most bountiful marine ecosystems in the world.

Few would argue that the Valdez spill was not a tragedy. It was a devastating accident. More marine mammals and birds died than in any other oil spill, including an estimated 250,000 seabirds, 2,650 sea otters, 300 harbor seals and 14 to 22 killer whales. Many critical spawning and rearing habitats still have not recovered.

Unlike the more rational reaction to the sinking of the Titanic, the grounding of the Valdez

has resulted in a decade of shrill calls by environmental groups like the Sierra Club and the Washington, D.C.-based Alaska Wilderness League for a ban on even the exploration for oil on Alaska's North Slope, particularly on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge's coastal plain, and in the National Petroleum Reserve.

Now these groups are touting the 10th anniversary of the Valdez disaster to oppose legislation by Sen. Frank Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, that would allow seismic testing in ANWR to determine the amount of oil in the area and the feasibility of development. Meanwhile, Rep. Bruce Vento, D-Minn., and Sen. William Roth, R-Del., are poised to introduce legislation supported by environmentalists that would add the coastal plain to the National Wilderness Preservation System, effectively banning oil development.

It's important to note that millions of dollars of income from Alaska's oil fields have been spent in Georgia over the last three decades, so such a ban would have an impact on this state. In addition, a new assessment of conventional oil reserves around the world indicates we face a devastating oil crisis over the next 70 years, according to the London Observer. It's important to both our nation and our state for seismic testing to proceed if we are to locate new reserves of domestic oil to weather this crisis.

As devastating as the Valdez oil spill was, it doesn't justify stopping further development of vital oil fields. Rather, these groups should be urging better safety rules and more efficient, less obtrusive technology.

That's what Ben Nagaek is doing, and he's puzzled by the attitude of those who oppose oil production in his state.

Nagaek is the mayor of Alaska's North Slope Borough, which has worked with the oil industry for nearly 30 years. Nagaek, an Inupiat Eskimo, admits that early on in the relationship, he and his people were concerned over the potential for catastrophic environmental problems. However, he says, ``Almost 30 years later, our worst fears have never been realized. ... The oil industry has been a good neighbor and partner. ...

``The people who live, hunt and work here believe that development can happen in an environmentally safe and sound manner. Why then are people outside this state seemingly so determined to lock this state's resources up in a wide variety of extremely restrictive environmental bills?

``These are bills they would never tolerate in their own states. ...''

Unfortunately for Alaskans, about 90 percent of Alaska's land is owned by either the federal government or the state. In many areas, it literally takes an act of Congress to construct a road or to build a log cabin. How many Georgians would put up with that?

Since 1986 an average of 69 percent of Alaskans have supported oil development and the opening of ANWR's coastal plain to oil exploration. The lowest positive response to this question came in April 1989, one month after the Valdez incident. In that poll, 54 percent of Alaskans still favored oil development.

Nagaek says, ``We have been stewards of this land for many thousands of years. Our footprints have always appeared next to that of the polar bear, the caribou and the geese. Our land has never been a virgin wilderness untouched by man. My people have always used its resources to survive. As such, we have the right and responsibility to see that our land continues to be used to the benefit of our people.

"There was a time when that meant unrestricted access to fish and game. But as we enter the 21st century, that definition is changing to mean access to the vast wealth of our land in order to maintain the basic services. ... And I do mean basic services -- flush toilets and clean water are not considered luxuries anywhere else in this country and they should not be considered luxuries in (Alaska).''