56°

Sound off on the important issues at

But Alaska's outer continental shelf is also one of our nation's most productive marine ecosystems. Alaska has more continental shelf, marine mammals, seabirds, fish, shellfish and shoreline than the rest of the nation combined. Our offshore ecosystem supports the nation's largest fisheries and the oldest subsistence tradition. And with its infamous stormy seas, sea ice and remoteness, the Alaska shelf is one of the most difficult working environments in the world.

Clearly, the risks of offshore oil are greater in Alaska than anywhere else in the nation.

The draft environmental impact statement for the proposed leasing program is simply not fit for the purpose. It overstates benefits and downplays risk - the "don't-worry-be-happy" approach. Such complacency is a recipe for disaster.

The draft statement is full of inaccuracies, inadequately assesses cumulative effects, and gives short shrift to risks to threatened and endangered species. In the North Aleutian basin, these include Steller eider, Steller sea lions, North Pacific right whales (with 100 left, the most critically endangered whale in the world), sea otters, short-tailed albatross, humpback and fin whales. And the region's fisheries are critical to the state. All of this is put at considerable risk by the leasing plan. Everyone knows this, yet the draft statement does not honestly address this risk.

Offshore exploration poses its own unique problems. For instance, the seismic exploration program now underway in the Arctic Ocean originally incorporated rigorous standards requiring companies to shut down their seismic shoots when whales are exposed to dangerous sound levels, which can extend 50 miles from the vessel. After first agreeing to this, ConocoPhillips went to court and had this requirement suspended - not a good first step into the Alaska shelf, and an ominous sign of things to come. Perhaps the federal government should take over the entire seismic program, contract its own seismic vessel, do it right, and sell the data to interested companies.

The most troubling inadequacy of the draft statement is its dramatic underestimate of oil spill risk and impact. Did these folks learn nothing from Exxon Valdez? They predict two "major" oil spills in lease areas over the 40-year life of the operation, and then seriously down play the potential size and affect of such spills. This is the same thinking that predicted the probability of an Exxon Valdez spill at about one in 241 years - it took only 12 years. The draft entirely ignores such low-probability, high-consequence events. No catastrophe possible here. Recall that most of the populations injured by the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill have yet to fully recover.

This isn't "doing it right." For such a huge issue, Alaska and the nation deserve better. We've learned not to trust government and the oil industry collaborating behind closed doors without informed public oversight. Alaskans should get informed and engaged in this process, and soon. You have until Nov. 22 to comment, and all documents and comment instructions can be found at www.mms.gov/5-year/.

• Rick Steiner is a Juneau resident and professor at the University of Alaska Southeast.