Mystery Pool Under the Plain

By ANDREA DORFMAN

Which deserves priority: preserving America's wilderness or finding a steady supply of domestic oil? In the aftermath of the Exxon Valdez spill in March 1989, the environment was the overwhelming favorite. But in the month since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, which has pushed oil prices from $17 a bbl. to more than $30, the political mood has changed rapidly. The prime focus of the debate is the coastal plain of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a pristine wilderness area that may hold the largest untapped oil deposit in the U.S.

Situated on Alaska's North Slope just west of the Canadian border, the 19 million-acre refuge is home to several hundred Eskimos, grizzlies, musk-oxen, wolves, migratory birds and a herd of 180,000 caribou, whose majestic spring migration has inspired naturalists to call the preserve "America's Serengeti." But to oilmen and Alaska politicians, the refuge's 1.5 million- acre coastal plain is a potential lode of black gold.

The size of the oil deposit, however, is a mystery. The Interior Department's estimate ranges from 600 million bbl. of crude to as much as 9.2 billion bbl. At the high end, the oil reservoir would be roughly equal to Alaska's enormous Prudhoe Bay field, or more than the U.S. uses in a year. The Interior Department puts the odds of finding a commercially exploitable oil field in the refuge at 1 in 5, vs. the industry's typical success rate of 1 in 50.

Almost all elected officials in Alaska believe the U.S. should open the coastal plain for drilling, which could create thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenue. The Bush Administration, citing a study contending that the oil could be pumped without harming the environment, has proposed that the drilling ban be lifted. In addition, the Senate last month unanimously passed an amendment to the defense authorization bill that obliges the President to keep oil imports below 50% of domestic demand. If passed by a joint resolution of Congress, the amendment could open all federal lands outside national parks -- including national forests, wildlife refuges and the outer continental shelf -- to oil and gas development.

Advocates of drilling on the refuge emphasize that the pumping operations would involve an area only the size of Delaware, while the entire preserve is nearly as large as Maine. And the crude could be carried cheaply in the 800- mile trans-Alaska pipeline, which has a good safety record. Environmentalists, however, see the drilling as a gross intrusion on one of the last untouched wilderness areas. Many Eskimos favor development because they would legally share in the income. But the Gwich'in Indians in Arctic Village (pop. 100) near the refuge bitterly oppose it. "This is a simple issue. We have the right to continue our way of life. We are caribou people," says Sara James, a tribal leader.

In the short run, the U.S. would be foolish to count on a new Alaskan bonanza to fuel a gas-guzzling life-style. If oil is found on the refuge, major production could take 10 years to gear up. Even then, the contribution to U.S. petroleum needs would be relatively small compared with other means of reducing demand and finding alternative energy sources. One Senate proposal to boost auto fuel-efficiency standards 40% in the next decade could save 10 times as much oil as the refuge might produce. And while a new oil field would eventually run dry, the savings would be ongoing.

With reporting by Glenn Garelik/Washington and David Postman/Juneau