Tweet

All eyes are on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge with the Trump Administration's push to hold oil and gas lease sales within the next decade — and potentially, as early as next year. As part of ground-level preparation in advance of the leases, the refuge could see 3D seismic surveys as soon as this winter.

"Seismic exploration generates acoustic waves that are picked up by sensors as the waves bounce off subsurface formations," noted the Bureau of Land Management in a proposed action plan. "From this information, images can be created that show subsurface topography and formations including those areas of potential hydrocarbons."

Basically, large vibrating trucks would drive up and down the tundra in winter, sending acoustic waves into the ground and reading the feedback. The wave patterns can help map underground formations and point the way to potentially resource-rich areas.

Like much of what's surrounded the ANWR development plan, it's controversial work.

"Instead of a small footprint and a careful process, they want to deploy a small army of industrial vehicles and equipment with a mandate to crisscross every square inch of the Arctic Refuge's biological heart," noted the Alaska Wilderness League in a statement on July 23. "This scheme will put denning polar bears at risk and leave lasting scars on the fragile tundra and its vegetation, and that's before a single drill rig has been placed or length of pipeline installed."

Seismic surveys were last conducted in the refuge in the winters of 1984 and 1985, according to the Fish and Wildlife Service. At that time, the exploration involved 2D surveys, which are more spread out than the 3D surveys proposed this time around.

The 2D surveys were completed by trucks driving approximately 4 miles apart from one another, resulting in stripes of trails across the refuge. The new 3D surveys are done by trucks driving only 660 feet apart, creating a much denser hashing pattern on the tundra.

"Although such exploration is conducted only in winter, snow cover on the 1002 area is often shallow and uneven, providing little protection for sensitive tundra vegetation and soils," wrote Fish and Wildlife in a 2001 report entitled "Potential Impacts of Proposed Oil and Gas Development on the Arctic Refuge's Coastal Plain."

They continued, "The impact to vegetation and soils on the refuge would likely be much greater from 3D seismic surveys than from the 2D seismic surveys conducted in the 1980s."

In the 1980s, heavy equipment — including vibrator trucks — made more than 1,000 miles of trails across the tundra of the refuge. While 90 percent of those trails were able to recover in the decade following the work, a full 5 percent still showed signs of damage 25 years after, when they were evaluated in 2009, Fish and Wildlife noted.

No additional seismic work has happened in ANWR since then, though similar technology is used in the nearby National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).

"Modern seismic techniques in the Arctic are known to be minimally impactful," said BLM Alaska Communications Director Lesli Ellis-Wouters. "They continue to operate in the NPR-A, an environment similar to the Coastal Plain, with no significant impacts to wildlife or subsistence activities."

A permit application for seismic work was filed this summer by SAExploration, Inc., on behalf of itself and its partners. SAExploration is part of Kuukpik-SAE, which is a joint venture with Kuukpik Corp., Nuiqsut's village corporation.

The company also plans on entering into a new joint venture with Arctic Slope Regional Corp. (ASRC) and Kaktovik Inupiat Corp. (KIC), which will be called Inupiat Geophysical Partnership, LLC.

BLM recently approved SAExploration's permit application, which has kicked off the environmental review process.

"As we have done for seismic applications in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, we post the proposed action until the environmental review is completed," said Ellis-Wouters. "Currently, we are seeking substantive public input to help guide our review of this proposed action."

Rather than completing a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) at this time, BLM is leading an Environmental Assessment (EA), which is like an abbreviated version, often based on past studies and pre-existing information.

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducted an EIS in February 1983 for Proposed Oil and Gas Exploration within the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and concluded that there would be no significant impacts," she said. "Additionally, prior seismic activity in the NPR-A was found to have minimal impacts to the environment and all seismic activities were permitted through environmental assessments."

It was following that 1983 EIS that the early 2D seismic survey work was completed in the refuge.

As of about a decade ago, Fish and Wildlife found there were still 125 miles of damaged trails left by that work. In an online information sheet on seismic surveys, Fish and Wildlife noted that in some cases, trails have become "troughs." On others, researchers have noticed different types of plants than in the surrounding area. On a few of the trails, they found the permafrost had been damaged or melted on those tracks and remained wetter than nearby tundra.

"Some of these impacts are expected to persist for decades," they noted.

On the same information sheet, Fish and Wildlife points to the National Research Council's special committee on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Alaska North Slope Oil and Gas Activities.

"(It) estimated in 2003 that 32,000 miles of trails were made by seismic exploration between 1990 and 2001 on Alaska's North Slope. The committee wrote that 'nearly all of our knowledge about long-term recovery from seismic exploration comes from a single U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service study' — the Arctic Refuge study. Since no comparable research has been initiated in the development areas of the North Slope, Refuge staff will continue to monitor recovery of trails in the Refuge into the future," Fish and Wildlife noted.

A need for updated research has been a concern for many of the environmental groups who have spoken out against expedited lease sales in the refuge over the past several months and this time is no exception.

As the Washington Post reported on June 1, Fish and Wildlife itself responded to SAExploration's permit application, calling the plan inadequate and saying it lacked "applicable details for proper agency review." It also said the application had failed to look at the long-term effects of seismic work in the refuge, the Post reported.

Another concern that's been raised by the seismic permit application is potential disturbance of local wildlife, including musk oxen, caribou and polar bear.

"Current seismic exploration methods require numerous vehicles to move in a grid pattern across the tundra," stated Fish and Wildlife in the 2001 report. "Maternal polar bears with newborn cubs can be prematurely displaced from their winter dens by the noise, vibrations and human disturbance associated with oil exploration activities."

SAExploration wrote in its permit application that a survey crew would make note of polar bear dens and heritage sites, along with Native allotments, and those sites will be avoided and given a buffer zone.

According to BLM, SAExploration did submit a petition to authorize "takes" of polar bears, incidental to the work. The number was not specified in the proposed action plan.

SAExploration also indicated it will work closely with both the community of Kaktovik — through the Native Village — and the local corporation to "reduce winter surveys occurring during peak substance activity."

It also plans to form a panel comprising a subsistence user from Kaktovik, representatives from SAExploration, ASRC and KIC, and a subsistence representative from "crew operations" to oversee work and ensure community dialog.

Opponents of the seismic work, like the Alaska Wilderness League, have called the details of that plan into question.

"(T)here is no requirement that this panel or these observers actually be Alaska Native themselves, and there is no mention at all of the Gwich'in people or residents of Arctic Village or Venetie," they said in a statement. "This is a gross and egregious oversight."

At this point, Ellis-Wouters said she didn't have a timeline for the full assessment, but said that the public is invited to send in comments. While the process is moving along, it's important to note the permit for seismic survey work has not yet been issued — and no decision on that will be made — until the environmental assessment is complete.

"If through the environmental review process the BLM finds the proposed activity could result in significant impacts, an environmental impact statement (EIS) will be required, which requires notice in the Federal Register," said Ellis-Wouters.

Should the assessment, which is set to be completed next, show no significant impact, there will be a 30-day public comment period. Following that, BLM will either issue the permit to SAExploration, or not.

Anyone may send comments to blm_ak_coastal_plain_seismic_ea@blm.gov.