In January, American actor Robert Redford, who is also the spokesman for the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), sent a letter to NRDC "Action Fund" supporters warning of subversive activity on the part of the Bush administration regarding the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, a constant source of hot debate between environmental groups and industry.

"No one voted on Election Day to destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," Redford wrote. "But President Bush is now claiming a mandate to do exactly that.

"Congressional leaders are pushing for a quick vote that would turn America's greatest sanctuary for Arctic wildlife into a vast, polluted oil field.

"Even worse, they are planning to avoid public debate on this devastating measure by hiding it in a must-pass budget bill."

Redford goes on to claim that Bush's agenda has little to do with securing America's energy future or lowering gasoline prices. The real agenda, he claims is "the entire Bush-Cheney energy plan: to transfer our public estate into corporate hands so it can be liquidated for a quick buck."

Wow. Who knew those darned Republicans were so sneaky and money-grubbing? Regardless of one's political leanings, I see at least one logic lapse here (I'm being kind), and that's the reference to the "vast, polluted oil field." Regardless of the Bush-Cheney agenda, it's not the politicos who develop oil fields in the Arctic; it's the oil and gas industry. And I think we have a pretty good track record of leaving Arctic areas intact.

Indeed, my response upon reading that line was that Redford could probably be standing in the middle of an oil field in Alaska and not even know it was there. Arctic oil and gas development is about as close to "zero footprint" as it gets. Technologies such as extended-reach drilling enable operators to reach targets as much as 5 miles (8 km) from the drilling pad, meaning less impact on the environment. And the construction of ice roads enables equipment to be moved in and out of a region without impacting the delicate tundra.

In fact, Jim Mulva, chief executive officer of ConocoPhillips, spoke at a recent INTSOK Norwegian Oil and Gas Partners summit on oil and gas development in Arctic regions. He said the construction of ice roads is extraordinarily time-consuming and expensive, but companies routinely do it because the roads melt in the spring, leaving no evidence of their existence.

Overall, Mulva said, an operator in the Arctic has to remember that "things are different up here." Operators need to think small in terms of the footprint. For instance, in the Alpine field a 97-acre pad is producing a 40,000-acre field.

Companies like ConocoPhillips also pride themselves on being "exemplary neighbors," he said, maintaining good relations with the native inhabitants and being as unobtrusive as possible.

So here's my challenge - since Robert Redford probably doesn't subscribe to E&P, he'll remain unaware of these advances unless someone invites him up for a field trip. It's easier to criticize something when you haven't actually seen it. Let's fly him up to Alaska in style, plop him in the middle of the untainted wilderness and explain to him that several thousand feet below him is a well bore producing needed hydrocarbons. Let's show him a map of an oil field with an overlay of the caribou migrating routes. Better yet, let's get him up there twice - once in the winter while operations are underway, and again in the summer when no trace of those operations is left.

If he thinks ANWR would look like Spindletop, he's obviously in need of some education. And field trips are the best part of school, aren't they?

Comments