Oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve ANWR, has been an issue of controversy since

1
The Impacts of Petroleum Exploration on the
Porcupine Caribou Herd Kevin Fuller Mike Smith
Brett Winklesky
Oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife
Reserve (ANWR), has been an issue of controversy
since the 1950s. As existing oil reserves in
the Arctic become exhausted of there economically
obtainable petroleum, the search for new
reserves has been targeted towards the ANWR. The
8.9 million acres which constitutes the ANWR is
the only area on Alaskas north slope that is
prohibited from petroleum development. The ANWR
can be compared to the Serengeti in terms of its
naturally functioning ecosystems, and is one of
the worlds greatest wildlife refuges. An area
of particular interest to oil companies is the
1002 area of the ANWR. The 1002 area makes up
10 of the ANWR, and occupies only 4 of Alaskas
coastal plains. This area was not part of the
original ANWR declared by the Eisenhower
Administration in 1960 instead, it was set aside
to be studied for possible petroleum development
and environmental attributes. Studies conducted
in the 1002 area from 1981 to 1985 revealed that
petroleum production in the area would result in
long-term and widespread changes to wildlife
habitat. Despite these findings which were
reported to congress in 1987, legislation to
allow for oil drilling in the refuge was passed
in 1995. President Clinton vetoed the bill
latter. Today, the pressure to move forward
with drilling is stronger than ever with
President Bush in office. Proponents of
petroleum production in the ANWR insist that new
oil exploration techniques are environmentally
friendly, and will have a minimum impact on the
wilderness area. They also emphasize the
estimated half million jobs that will be created
from petroleum production in the 1002 area.
Protesters of petroleum development in the ANWR
point out the delicacy of arctic ecosystems and
the long term consequences of oil excavation.
They argue that the jobs created from petroleum
production are only short lived, especially since
there is only a 50 chance of excavating a 9
months supply of oil in the 1002 areathe
research and development of alternative energy
could bring more long-term jobs. Key to the
arguments against oil drilling in the 1002 area
is the possible impacts on the Porcupine Caribou
Herd (PCH). The PCH are characterized by there
twice annual migration across the Porcupine River
to reach there preferred calving grounds in the
spring. The calving grounds happen to be the
1002 area. The PCH calve here several reasons.
The forage is highest in mineral and nutrient
content in the spring, which is critical for
young calves and mothers after the long winter
months. These coastal foothill planes of the
1002 area are windy and provide refuge from
mosquitoes and Oestrid flies which can suck as
much as a quart of blood in a week from a single
caribou. The 1002 area is also a retreat from
predators such as wolves and bears. Besides the
devastation to wildlife habitat from possible oil
spills, and the long-term topographical scars
left from exploration equipment, scientists are
concerned that the noises produced from oil
excavating equipment will disrupt the ancient
migration patterns of the PCH. The declining
populations of woodland caribou in northern
Alberta led to the study conducted by Bradshaw
et. al. observing woodland caribou behavior under
simulated oil exploration. An area of 20,000
square Kilometers centered at 56 N, 112 W, in
NW Alberta was the study area where a propane
canon, known as a Zon Gun, was used to simulate
the noises produced from oil exploration
equipment. The two years of experimenting ended
in 1994 with the conclusion that loud noises
greatly increases the rate of caribou movement,
and causes caribou displacement from optimal
forage and habitat. The results of this and
other studies similar in nature add to the
concern over petroleum development in the 1002
area. If the critical calving grounds of the
PCH were to encounter the sonic disturbances
produced from oil excavation during the calving
season, PCH population could decline
unforeseeably. References Arctic Circle.
2001. Migration Patterns of the caribou and
biology of the ANWR. Oct. 1, 2001.
http//arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/anwrcaribou.htm
l Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 1002 Area,
Petroleum Assessment, 1998, Including Economic
Analysis. (1998). Retrieved October 10, 2001
from World Wide Web http//geology.cr.usgs.gov/pu
b/fact-sheets/fs-0028-01/fs-0028-01.htm Bradshaw,
J.A., S. Boutin, and D.M. Herbert. 1997.
Effects of Petroleum Exploration on Woodland
Caribou in Northeastern Alberta. Journal of
Wildlife Management. 61 1127-1133. Fancy,
S.G., and R.D. Cameron. 1991. Selection of
calbing sites by Porcupine herd caribou.
Canadian Journal of Zoology. 69 1736-1743.
Matthew, A., Warren, B.B., Bryan, J.D.,
Pierson, B.J., McKendrik, J.D. 1998 Northern
Alaska Oil Fields and Caribou A commentary.
Biological Conservation. Vol. 83 195-208.
Nelleman, C., and Cameron, R.D. 1996. Terrain
preferences of calving caribou exposed to
petroleum development. Arctic. 49 23-28.
Porcupine Caribou Herd Satellite Collar
Project. (2001 November 5). Retrieved November
5, 2001 from World Wide Web http//www.taiga.net/
caribou/pch/si_sum.html Savage, C. May/June
2001. Caribou Shuffle. Canadian Geographic.
123 28-31. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
2001. Potential impacts of proposed oil and gas
development on the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, Fairbanks, Alaska. 17 January 2001.
http//arctic.fws.gov/issues1.html.
Map from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Anchorage, AK
UNDISTURBED HABITAT
DISTURBED HABITAT