Four years ago, the policy to increase domestic energy production clashed with the desire to preserve large areas of pristine Alaskan wilderness over the question of constructing the Trans-Alaska Pipeline to bring oil from the large deposits on the North Slope at Prudhoe Bay to the ice-free port of Valdez. The controversy over the oil pipeline raged in the courts¹ and in Congress before it was finally resolved by legislation.² Although the litigation over the original pipeline did delay construction, it elucidated serious environmental impacts that had been overlooked or understimated and resulted in several environmentally crucial design changes and mitigation measures.³ These same concerns for increased energy production and conservation of the Alaskan wilderness are colliding again, this time on the issue of constructing a second pipeline to transport natural gas from the Prudhoe Bay field to the lower 48 states.