Scientists Decry Arctic Oil Expansion in Letter to U.S. Senators

Researchers say that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm critical habitat

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

NEW YORK (Reuters) - A group of 37 U.S.-based scientists whose research focuses on Arctic wildlife asked two U.S. senators in a letter on Thursday not to open the National Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, according to a copy seen by Reuters.

The scientists, including several retired former officials from the Alaska Department of Fish & Game, the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, said in a letter to Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Senator Maria Cantwell of Washington that drilling for oil and gas in the refuge would be "incompatible with the purposes for which the refuge was established," protecting fish and wildlife populations and the environments in which they live.

Murkowski, a Republican, introduced a bill on Wednesday that would create an oil and gas exploration program on the refuge's coastal plain, letting prospectors build any roads and other infrastructure they deemed necessary inside the refuge to carry out their operations. Half of the available drilling royalties would go to the state of Alaska and half to the federal government. The program's administrator would be required to hold at least two lease sales within 10 years after the bill became law.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The scientists said drilling on the coastal plain would be particularly harmful because it contains a "unique compression" of habitats supporting animals like polar bears, grizzly bears, wolverines, representing "the greatest wildlife diversity of any protected area above the Arctic Circle."

A spokesman for Cantwell did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Murkowski's spokeswoman declined to comment and referred a comment request to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The conflict over whether to allow drilling inside the refuge has deep roots. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates the area on the Prudhoe Bay in Northern Alaska has up to 12 billion barrels of recoverable crude, and Republicans, who now control Congress and the White House, have long wanted to open a portion of the refuge called the 1002 area.

Murkowski, who chairs the Senate Energy Committee, called the 1002 portion a "non wilderness area" because the government put it aside decades ago for petroleum exploration. Last month, Democrats tried and failed to pass legislation blocking drilling there.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe