President Bush's decision to lift a ban on oil and gas drilling in Bristol Bay is being roundly applauded by Gov. Sarah Palin and severely criticized by fishermen and others over environmental issues.
Palin responded quickly and approvingly to the announcement that clears the way for the Interior Department to open 5.6 million acres of Bristol Bay for it's next five-year oil and gas leasing plan.
“It is gratifying that the federal government is again looking north to Alaska to provide the energy our nation needs,” Palin said. “Development in the Bristol Bay region could provide the jobs, economic diversification and energy the people of this region need. If we can be sure it will not threaten the fisheries that are the foundation of the region's economy and way of life, I'm all for it.”
There are believed to be 200 million barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas beneath the bay's federal waters three miles to 200 miles from shore. The Interior Department last year estimated energy development could produce up to 11,500 jobs and new tax revenue for the state.
The area is home to the world's richest sockeye salmon fishery and is also known for its endangered North Pacific right whales.
Concern over fisheries prompted Congress to put the bay off limits to drilling in 1990 after the massive Exxon Valdez tanker oil spill on the other side of the peninsula in Prince William Sound. Later, then-President Clinton added his own drilling ban, one that had been continued by Bush.
Palin's sentiments were reflected in comments from Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who said Bush's decision to lift the moratorium was “welcome news for people who live and work in the Bristol Bay region.
“The federal government, the state of Alaska and local communities will now be able to work together to evaluate oil and gas potential in this area,” Stevens said. “The decision gives residents of Bristol Bay the opportunity to look for new energy sources within their own region to meet their needs.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said that lifting the presidential moratorium, on top of lifting of a companion congressional moratorium in 2004, still does not clear the way for any energy leasing in the Bristol Bay area.
“The area still has to be proposed for leasing in a revised five-year oil and gas leasing plan, which is still under review,” Murkowski said. “Two environmental impact studies and reviews must take place before leasing can be conducted — a process that will take several more years to complete.
“This is not the end of the public process, but rather the start of a dialogue that could lead to important energy development in our state,” she said. “It is vital for Alaskans to express their views on the upcoming environmental impact statement regarding the five-year schedule, as well as take advantage of future public comment periods.”
Bush's decision comes on the heels of yet another oil spill in Alaska Jan. 9, a spill of up to 500 gallons, which caused the trans-Alaska oil pipeline to be taken off-line for part of the day.
Officials of the Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., which operates the pipeline, confirmed Jan. 9 that cleanup operations were underway south of Atigun Pass, some 225 miles northwest of Fairbanks.
Robin Samuelsen, a Dillingham business executive whose family has fished in Bristol Bay for generations, said he hoped that the Secretary of the Interior would not allow drilling to go through.
“The risks to the environment far outweigh the oil that is potentially in the ground there,” said Samuelsen, president and chief executive officer of the Bristol Bay Economic Development Corp. “Most of the tribes and communities in Bristol Bay have supported onshore multi-directional drilling to three miles offshore, but most people in Bristol Bay do not support offshore oil and gas development.
“I would hope that the state of Alaska, with its new administration, would oppose the offshore lease sale,” said Samuelsen, who has served on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council and the Alaska Board of Fisheries.
Karen Gillis, executive director of the Bering Sea Fishermen's Association, also criticized the move. She said the Interior Department news release on lifting the ban attempts to link the action to the removal of similar presidential OCS withdrawals covering Florida's 'Lease Sale 181-South' in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. That 6 million-acre area was opened by the U.S. Senate drilling bill enacted just before the holidays, in the closing moments of the 109th Congress.
“Contrary to the assertion in these Department of Interior materials that today's White House move is consistent with congressional action, Congress has not taken any legislative action to open Bristol Bay,” Gillis said.
“Bristol Bay was protected by a presidential OCS withdrawal first put in place in 1998 by President Clinton. In a concurrent, but unrelated, action, President Bush is also raising the royalty rate from federal OCS leases in the Gulf of Mexico, but did not raise the royalty rate in Alaskan waters,” she said.
Aleutians East Borough officials expressed cautious optimism over the Bush decision. The borough issued a statement saying the move could make possible offshore oil and gas exploration and development in a remote region where residents see the need for economic diversity, but still intend to protect traditional fisheries.
“The president has opened the door for us,” said Stanley Mack, a fisherman and borough mayor. “But we're going to walk through it very, very cautiously. We need to make sure development can work with the traditional commercial and subsistence fisheries we have relied on for thousands of years.”
The Aleutians East Borough, along with dozens of Native tribal organizations, fishing groups, cities, the Lake and Peninsula Borough and the Bristol Bay Borough have formally supported lifting the moratorium with caveats.
“Removal of the presidential withdrawal allows the National Environmental Policy Act process to go forward and the Aleutians East Borough and others to actively participate in the process,” said Bob Juettner, borough administrator.
“We want to see strict safeguards and policies in place, or we will withdraw our support and actively work to ban any exploration or drilling,” he said. “With that said, I truly believe that if done correctly, development can co-exist with our traditional fisheries.”
Others representing commercial fishermen who depend on Bristol Bay for their livelihood were not so sure.
“We are not surprised, but we are extremely disappointed in the decision,” said David Harsilla of the Alaska Independent Fishermen's Marketing Association. “We feel this area in the Bering Sea is the breadbasket of seafood in the whole world.
“This is no place to start leaking oil or having release of petroleum. Releases of oil to varying degrees are inevitable,” Harsilla said.
Eric Siy, executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, which represents fishermen, subsistence harvesters, marine scientists, conservationists and small business owners, also expressed concern.
“Opening Bristol Bay to offshore oil and gas development could have devastating impacts to the marine environment and coastal economies,” Siy said.
“Bristol Bay's renewable fisheries resources have long supported coastal economies and subsistence ways of life in Alaska, and if managed properly, can do so well into the future,” he said.
Siy said the federal government's own studies indicate a relatively small amount of oil and gas potential, and fail to weigh this against the potential for damage to fish and their habitat.
“The president's action today ends an admirable history of bipartisan protection for Bristol Bay,” Siy said. “We will be calling on the new Congress to restore protection for Bristol Bay and secure a lasting moratorium on offshore drilling.”
Margaret Bauman can be reached at margie.bauman@alaskajournal.com.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
