Letters

May 12, 2003
As an author of several books and publications about the Arctic Refuge, and a person who has lived in Alaska for 28 years, I read Scott Montgomery's recent article about the Arctic Refuge with interest.

Arctic Refuge

As an author of several books and publications about the Arctic Refuge, and a person who has lived in Alaska for 28 years, I read Scott Montgomery's recent article about the Arctic Refuge with interest. While he made a good effort to describe a very long and complex battle over proposed oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge, there are several factual errors in his article.

1. Montgomery noted that the Arctic Refuge coastal plain is "not scenic, not special, and not hospitable." To the contrary, I have visited the "1002" coastal plain on numerous occasions. It is one of the most magnificent areas in the world because of the dramatic vistas of the highest mountains in the Brooks Range. The expansive plain thrives with wildlife through all the seasons, particularly in the late spring and summer. This is a world class and unique wilderness area.

2. He stated that "possibly a few polar bears" might be found on the coastal plain. To the contrary, the coastal plain has the highest density of land-denning female polar bears in America. With the significant changes in sea ice, due to global warming, land denning sites are increasingly important for polar bears as far as reproductive success.

3. He left out an extremely important historical point. When the original Arctic Range was first established in 1960, Secretary Seaton also revoked Public Land Order 82, which opened up 20 million acres of North Slope lands to the State of Alaska for resource development. This is in addition to the adjacent 23-million acre National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA). Roughly 95% of Alaska's North Slope, about the size of Washington state, is set aside for current or future oil and gas exploration and development. There are now 24 producing fields on the North Slope, with as many as 50 satellite fields on the drawing board for development. The Arctic Refuge coastal plain represents the only 5% of Alaska's North Slope that is legally off-limits to resource development. Fact.

4. When the Arctic Refuge was established under the 1980 Alaska Lands Act, 8 million acres of the 19 million-acre refuge were designated wilderness, not 18.1, as Montgomery noted.

5. He erroneously wrote that the 1998 USGS petroleum assessment reported a "significant greater volume of oil could be economically recovered than previously believed." The 1998 report notes the same amount of economic recoverable oil for the 1002 area as in earlier reports—3.2 billion bbl, which would supply our nation for 6 months at current consumption rates. It would not significantly lower our imports—a 2% reduction is all (DOE).

6. He noted in-place values for oil, not all of which can be recovered. The more accepted USGS mean estimate for "technically recoverable" oil in the 1002 area is 7.7 billion bbl. By comparison, Anadarko recently announced that they now believe NPRA and the adjacent northern foothills contain more oil than Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk combined—17 billion bbl of recoverable oil yet to be tapped.

7. Last, he noted that NPRA was opened as a likely "attempt to distract attention from ANWR." To the contrary, NPRA was opened because our governor pushed for it, and because the oil industry is interested in developing high potential areas within NPRA, due to several major discoveries in the area, such as the Alpine field, the nation's 10th largest.

Industry has a full plate of opportunities on Alaska's North Slope, with many decades of oil that will run down the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. There is no need to develop the sensitive Arctic Refuge coastal plain. We need to leave a portion of America's Arctic undisturbed for the wildlife and future generations—free of man's industrial sprawl of pipelines, facilities, wells, and generators.

To learn more about the history and special values of the Arctic Refuge through all the seasons, I suggest that Montgomery and your readers take a look at any of the publications that I've authored.

Debbie S. Miller
Author
Fairbanks, Alas.

Montgomery's reply

Thank you very much for your interested letter. I have seen your books, plus a number of others, and have done an extensive review of related literature, websites, legislative documents, etc. First, let me say that the intent of the series is neither to argue for nor against development, but instead to characterize the nature of the debate and to summarize the most updated scientific information. The following are my responses to your individual points.

As an author yourself, you are probably sensitive to the fact that being misquoted is only too easily taken as a sign of a "reviewer's bias" and, unfortunately or not—provides evidence there of. The article does not contain a phrase stating that the coastal plain is "not scenic, not special, and not hospitable." This is what is printed: "Eight-to-nine months of the year, the coastal plain portion of ANWR—known as the 1002 ("ten-o-two") area, where the majority of oil prospects lie—is sheathed in ice, snow, and subzero winds. It is not scenic (in the normal sense) or hospitable (in any sense), especially to humans." In short, the aesthetic values of the 1002 area are strongly reduced during the long winter months.

The polar bear issues are covered in Part 3 of the report.

The historical point about Seaton opening up a significant portion of the North Slope is valid, but the realities involved— these lands being offered not to oil development per se but for state selection, leading to the complex Native American claims on North Slope lands are very complex, as you no doubt know. I chose not to include this information, as it does not deepen the reader's sense of the nature of the controversy at the legislative level—the focus of this section. Other points of view may certainly disagree with this judgment.

You are certainly correct about the wilderness acreage designated by ANILCA. An erratum may be in order.

The article does not say that the USGS 1998 Assessment "reported" a greater volume of oil might be economically recovered than previously believed. Instead, it states: "These updated estimates [of the in-place resource] suggested that a significantly greater volume of oil could be economically recovered than previously believed." The difference between "reported" and "suggested" is enormous and is given context by the preceding sentences—perhaps a subtle point to some, but not at all to scientific considerations, which are at issue here. If you wish to know more about this issue in detail, please consult the Assessment Overview section (of the 1998 USGS report) by Ken Bird, which discusses comparisons to earlier assessments by all organizations.

Your statement about 7.7 billion bbl as the mean for estimated technically recoverable reserves is correct.This is provided in my Part 2 article. Meanwhile, the claims made by Anadarko remain unconfirmed until supported by the release of actual information.

You misinterpret the statement about opening NPRA. What I wrote was this: "Clinton's Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, did approve drilling in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve (NPRA), to the west of Prudhoe Bay, a move that has been commonly interpreted as an attempt to distract attention from ANWR." The sentence does not reflect my interpretation, but instead a widespread impression among others, and is meant to show the continuing nature of the controversy.

Finally, while I certainly agree with the validity and worth of your position in this debate, along with others, I would suggest that this position cannot be well served through misquotation and misrepresentation. There is a critical need to separate science from spin in this controversy. I would hope that all stances might help contribute toward this goal.

Again, my thanks for your letter.

Scott L. Montgomery