Oil Drilling in Arctic Refuge

* In your July 10 article about oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, drilling proponents advocate spending large sums of money to permanently alter a pristine wilderness, resulting in at best 30 years of oil or at worst the “world’s most expensive dry hole.” In either case this country eventually ends up just as dependent on foreign oil as we are today.

The resources required to open up ANWR to oil drilling would be far better spent on the development of practical, affordable electric vehicles. EV technology offers a dramatic and permanent reduction in our dependence on foreign oil.

The ANWR oil issue is symptomatic of this country’s lack of long-term vision. Quick and easy “work around” fixes that only postpone true problem-solving are the result of our short-term preoccupation with the next election cycle, the next quarterly corporate earnings statement and the next Alaskan oil tax rebate check. Easily accessible domestic oil is a finite resource that will eventually be exhausted.

MARK BIXBY

Mission Viejo

* Your article ignored the perspective of the Eskimos of Kaktovik, who actually live on the coastal plain where oil development is proposed. The village council has passed a resolution supporting oil development.

The article puts an emotional spin on the issue of the Porcupine River caribou herd, which migrates from Canada through Alaska and back, each year. Wildlife biologist Fran Mauer is quoted saying no one knows what will happen when 50,000 caribou approach a pipeline or road. In fact, the herd of 152,000 migrates across the Dempster Highway in Canada, not once, but twice each year during its journey. Oil development in the region would have little impact as the newest oil fields are being built with no roads and a buried pipeline.

Perhaps the most offensive reference made by the reporter was that of an oil field in the midst of a wilderness--in fact, the coastal plain area is not a wilderness area, but has been used by the villagers of the North Slope for hunting, as a transportation corridor and for gathering fuel from the natural oil seeps along the riverbeds. The area south of the coastal plain--some 8 million acres--is a federally designated wilderness and won’t be developed.

The issue of Arctic oil development is really quite simple--80% of Alaskans, including the statewide Alaska Federation of Natives, Gov. Tony Knowles and the Alaska Legislature, support it; it can be done with few environmental impacts; and it will provide jobs for all 50 states.

DEBBIE REINWAND

Executive Director, ANWR

Anchorage, Alaska

* The article brings forth in a very compelling way a number of arguments which the government of Canada has been making with the U.S. Administration and members of Congress regarding ill-advised attempts to proceed with oil and gas development in the Arctic refuge.

Canada is concerned that opening the Arctic refuge to such development will lead to major disruptions in the sensitive calving grounds and will affect migratory patterns of the Porcupine caribou herd on which thousands of Canadian and American aboriginal people depend. In 1987, Canada and the U.S. signed an agreement on the conservation of the Porcupine caribou which recognized the trans-boundary nature of these wildlife resources and our joint responsibility for protecting them.

Members of Congress should recognize the implications for Canada-U.S. relations of any decision to permit oil and gas development in the refuge.

DENNIS BROWNE

Consul General of Canada

Los Angeles