Oil Leasing in the Arctic Refuge
Alaska Native Tribal Opposition to Drilling
A deceptive misconception is that the only Native tribes that oppose drilling for oil in the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge[1] are the Gwich’in Nation of Alaska and Canada. The pro-drilling position of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), which is a corporation organized under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) is often mistaken for general opposition among Natives for protecting the Arctic Refuge from drilling. ASRC’s position cannot be equated with general Native support for drilling.
It is certainly true that the Gwich’in Nation, which includes seven federally recognized tribes in the U.S.,[2] is firmly opposed to oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.[3] Yet they are hardly the only Native Americans opposed to drilling.
Notably, there is significant opposition to oil and gas drilling among the Inupiat people who live in Kaktovik and on the North Slope of Alaska. When Senator Lisa Murkowski led a congressional delegation trip to Kaktovik last spring, the delegation was met by local residents protesting congressional efforts to allow drilling in the Refuge.[4] Some Kaktovik residents have prepared and are circulating to Kaktovik residents a petition opposing oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.[5] That petition currently has 61 signatures.
As one resident of Kaktovik stated: “I am in full opposition to opening of the refuge to oil development…. Other residents of Kaktovik have voiced the same opinion as well.”[6] The number of signatures led the Mayor of this small village to say that “he is no longer certain where the majority stand.”[7] The Native Village of Point Hope, which is an Inupiat village farther west along the North Slope from Kaktovik, passed a resolution opposing the development of oil and gas in the 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge.[8]
The reasons for this opposition include a concern for the impacts of oil and gas activities on the land and sea. Impacts on land concern the Inupiat people and communities because of the likely harm to their subsistence activities and cultures. Furthermore, Inupiat recognize that oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a stepping stone to offshore oil drilling, to which they are also opposed because of likely harm to their subsistence resources in the marine environment.[9]
Moreover, opposition to oil drilling in the 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge among Native tribes goes far beyond these two communities that would be most affected by such drilling. The Alaska Inter-Tribal Council (AITC), which represents roughly 200 sovereign Alaska Native Tribes,[10] has long opposed opening the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling.[11] As Mike Williams, the vice-chair of AITC, recently stated: “I read that Alaska Natives support opening [the Arctic Refuge]. That’s not true.”[12] The Tanana Chiefs Conference, which is a non-profit consortium of 42 Interior Alaska Native villages with 15,000 residents from 37 different Federally-recognized Tribes, also opposes oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge.[13]
Numerous Native American Tribes also oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge. At least 90 individual tribes formally oppose such drilling.[14] The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), the major national tribal government organization representing over 250 tribes,[15] has opposed drilling in the 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge since 1988. [16] Further, the Native American Rights Fund, the major Indian Rights law firm in the United States, also opposes drilling in the 1002 area of the Arctic Refuge.[17]
Finally, Canadian tribes and other international tribal organizations oppose oil drilling in the Arctic Refuge in significant numbers. [18]
Contact: Luci Beach, Gwich’in Steering Committee, 907-458-8264
Robert Thompson, Kaktovik, 907-640-6119
Pam Miller, Arctic Connections, 907-272-1909
Eleanor Huffines, The Wilderness Society, 907-272-9453
References
[1] The “1002 area” of the Arctic Refuge references section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), which, among other things, describes the area on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge that Congress placed off limits to oil drilling in Section 1003 of ANILCA.
[2] Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian Entities recognized and eligible to receive services from the U. S. Bureau of Indian Affairs. 67 FR 46327-46333, (July 12, 2002). http://www.yvwiiusdinvnohii.net/lists/FederallyRecognized2002.pdf.
[4] See The Arctic Sounder (March 10, 2005) at 5.
[5] See Petition entitled “The following residents of Kaktovik, are opposed to oil development in the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; see also letter from Kaktovik resident Robert Thompson to U.S. Congress (March 14, 2005) (describing opposition and petition).
[6] Mary Margaret Brower, Some Kaktovik residents oppose ANWR development, The Arctic Sounder (March 10, 2005 at 5).
[8] Native Village of Point Hope IRA, Resolution 05-06 (February 22, 2005).
[9] 25 years of Testimony Related to Proposed Activities on the Arctic Continental Shelf and Related Areas from 1975 to 2002. Alaska Region. Minerals Management Service. http://www.mms.gov/alaska/ref/PublicHearingsArctic/PublicHearings.htm. (accessed September 15, 2005).
Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government. Resolution 2005-21. A resolution to oppose an oil gas development in and Beaufort Sea lease sale 195 and all OCS Sales.
[10] See http://www.tribalresourcecenter.org/resources/taproviders/tapdetails.asp?4.
[11] Letter from Mike Williams, Chair, AITC, to U.S. Senate (December 11, 2002).
[12] DeMarban, Some Natives, conservationists join hands, The Arctic Sounder (July 14, 2005).
[13] Letter from Harold Brown, President and Chair, Tanana Chiefs Conference, to Members of Congress (April 19, 2005).
Tanana Chiefs Conference, Resolution 95-53, Oppose opening ANWR (1002 area) to oil and gas exploration (March 16, 1995).
[14] Gwich’in Steering Committee, 2005.
[16] NCAI Resolution #SD-02-108 (November 2002).
[17] Letter to U.S. Senate from John Echohawk, Executive Director, Native American Rights Fund. (March 18, 2003).
