Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/28/1993 10:00 AM House O&G
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
JOINT HOUSE AND SENATE
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL & GAS
January 28, 1993
10:10 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Chairman
Representative Harley Olberg
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Joe Sitton
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Pete Kott, Vice-Chairman
Representative Jerry Mackie
OTHER HOUSE MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kay Brown
Representative Cynthia Toohey
SENATE MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Loren Leman
Senator Bert Sharp
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview of Division of Oil & Gas Department of Natural
Resources
WITNESS REGISTER
David Johnston, Chairman/Commissioner
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
Department of Natural Resources
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501-3120
279-1433
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of the Commission
Jim Eason, Director
Division of Oil and Gas
P.O. Box 107034
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0734
762-2547
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview of the Division
Ken Boyd, Deputy Director
Division of Oil and Gas
P.O. Box 107034
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-0734
762-2547
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information about the Division
ACTION NARRATIVE
Tape 93-2, Side A
Number 000
The House Special Committee on Oil & Gas was called to order
by Chairman Joe Green at 10:10 a.m. Members present were
Representatives Green, Olberg, Davis, Sanders and Sitton.
CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the meeting was being held jointly
with the Senate and turned the gavel over to Senator Leman.
Number 016
SENATOR LOREN LEMAN, CO-CHAIR, announced that because of
other conflicts, other Senators were unable to attend, but
he expected to be joined by at least one of his colleagues,
and that the meeting would be considered a work session. He
then returned the gavel to Co-Chair Green.
CO-CHAIR GREEN acknowledged the presence of Representative
Cynthia Toohey. He then called on the Chairman of the Oil
and Gas Conservation Commission, Mr. Dave Johnston to give
the first overview.
Number 028
DAVID JOHNSTON, CHAIRMAN/COMMISSIONER, ALASKA OIL AND GAS
CONSERVATION COMMISSION (the Commission), DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), stated the Commission had a very
powerful statutory mandate and believed there was inadequate
understanding of the role of the Commission in terms of oil
and gas development in the state. He encouraged questions
and answers because he believed questions and answers were
probably a little bit more productive than a song and dance.
MR. JOHNSTON stated the Commission was an independent quasi-
judicial agency of the state of Alaska that had been given a
broad statutory mandate to prevent waste, protect the
correlative rights of the business owner, and insure the
ultimate recovery feasibly possible was obtained. The
Commission also implicated a program for the federal
government, called "The Underground Injection Control
Program" for class two oil and gas wells, in the state,
which was partially funded with federal government funds, he
advised.
MR. JOHNSTON added the Commission basically served as a
forum to adjudicate disputes between industry and state
government. He believed there was a lot of confusion about
waste, though the average citizen recognized waste on the
surface. The catastrophic release of oil and gas would
constitute waste, he said, and hoped the Commission's
actions would, in fact, prevent such an occurrence by, among
other ways, ensuring that drill rigs were properly equipped
with prevention equipment, and proper mud consistency to
control actual drilling operations.
Number 057
MR. JOHNSTON believed a more important aspect of the
Commission was the protection of reservoir energy itself.
The Commission was looking for development plans from
industry that intelligently developed reservoirs in a manner
that preserved the energy in order to recover as much of the
resource as possible, he said. This argued for an
understanding of the reservoir, the geology, geophysics and
strategy, elements which dictated aspects of development,
drilling, completion, and maintenance of pressure through
enhanced recovery operations. These are the things the
Commission basically focused on, he stressed.
MR. JOHNSTON stated the Commission kept an eye on the
activities of industry to ensure their plans for enhanced
recovery, water-plug operations, and gas flood operations
were done in a manner that made sense, and enhanced the
overall recovery of the resource. He added the Commission's
work, if done well, benefitted all Alaskans, by ensuring
worker safety, and the protection of the environment.
MR. JOHNSTON did not believe the state had adequately funded
the Commission. He pointed out funding for the Commission
in the early 1980s was about $2.5 million dollars with a
staff of 27 employees. Since about 1983, funding for the
Commission had steadily dropped, which compromised the
Commission's ability to carry out its functions. He
disclosed the Commission's budget was currently $1.8 million
dollars with a staff of 22. He pointed out the state, in
establishing the Commission, had established the oil and gas
conservation tax to provide a source of revenue for the
Commission, but that tax had been going into the general
fund.
Number 123
MR. JOHNSTON stated currently the tax brought in $2.3
million dollars, and the Commission's budget was $1.8
million dollars, a gap of $500,000 with which the Commission
could expand its capability and oversight. He disclosed the
Commission had the power to subpoena witnesses, level
penalties of up to $5,000 per day for the violation of the
order and regulation of statutes of the Commission, but did
not have the staff to do those things.
MR. JOHNSTON hoped to heighten the legislature's awareness
of the underfunding of the Commission and requested support
relative to utilizing the conservation tax for what it was
originally intended, that being funding the Commission, and
submitted that if the legislature was not prepared to do
that then the conservation tax should be reexamined and the
mill rate possibly lowered. He concluded by noting his
frustration about the lack of support given the Commission.
Number 158
CO-CHAIR GREEN requested confirmation that the Commission
was empowered with the responsibilities as well as the power
to actually go on board every time a well was drilled and
look at various phases of the drilling.
MR. JOHNSTON clarified the Commission had the power, but not
the capability to visit every well. However, the Commission
did attempt to visit every exploratory well. He disclosed
the Commission had five inspectors, an increase by two from
the previous year. The Commission also tried to get a
reasonable sampling of other development wells being
drilled, he added.
MR. JOHNSTON pointed out the Commission had a lot more
responsibilities than just looking at drill rigs, such as
ensuring that waste did not occur by, among other things,
the inspection of safety valves. Additionally, the
Commission was responsible for the measurement of oil and
gas to determine quality and quantity. Lately, the
Commission have been definitely focused on that particular
aspect, which was one of the highest priorities at this
point, he added.
MR. JOHNSTON noted one of the Commission's inspectors had a
mechanical engineering degree, and this inspector would be
the key person on metering. Currently, steps were being
taken to ensure he was properly trained, he advised.
Number 193
REPRESENTATIVE JOE SITTON inquired about the qualifications
of inspectors, their pay levels, and whether or not they had
industry ties or backgrounds.
MR. JOHNSTON disclosed the Commission looked for people that
had been in the field, knew the rigs, knew the operations,
had actually worked hands on, gotten their hands dirty and
understood what it was to drill an oil and gas well in the
state of Alaska. Taken together the Commission's five
inspectors had over 95 years combined experience in the oil
patch, he said. That level of experience was something he
felt very comfortable about building an inspection program
around.
MR. JOHNSTON advised inspectors were paid at a range 21 and
were allowed to float upward as they gained experience.
Currently the Commission had inspectors that ranged from 21A
to 21J, he added.
Number 232
CO-CHAIR GREEN acknowledged the presence of Representatives
Brown and Mackie.
Number 237
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS inquired into the number of
Commission staff at its inception.
MR. JOHNSTON disclosed in 1983, its peak year, the
Commission had a budget of $2.7 million dollars and a staff
of 27, which included five inspectors, a cadre of petroleum
engineers, petroleum geologists, and support staff.
Currently, the Commission's professional staff consisted of
three engineers and one geologist, he concluded.
Number 245
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS requested clarification on whether
1983 was the peak year or the year of the Commission's
inception.
MR. JOHNSTON clarified 1983 was the peak year, and that a
gradual reduction began in 1984 or 1985. He said it was
clear that the Commission was not spending the entire amount
of money that had been earmarked for it.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS had always been under the impression
that things like that did not happen in government, and
wondered how that happened.
MR. JOHNSTON noted the early 1980s was a period of time when
the state was flushed with a lot of money and, therefore, a
lot of money was being directed at a lot of different
agencies, one of which was the Commission. He said there
was a lot of money left on the table in terms of contractual
work, and the Commission had hundreds of thousands of
dollars turned back because there was no need or reason to
spend at that level.
MR. JOHNSTON was amazed that the Commission was funded at
what he deemed to be an inadequate level given its mandate.
Number 274
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS wondered whether this represented a
learning curve.
MR. JOHNSTON felt there was probably some truth to that. He
stated it was necessary to have some money devoted to
understanding the development of a huge reservoir like
Prudhoe Bay, in late 1970s or early 1980s. From his
perspective, the downsizing of industry provided some
incentive for ways to cut corners. He submitted the role of
the Commission in assuring development occurred in a manner
that did not jeopardize the resource and was every bit as
compelling today from the standpoint of ensuring things were
being done properly.
MR. JOHNSTON did not want to see industry cutting back to
the point where they compromised their ability to develop
reservoirs properly. He felt he should be doing more to
ensure inspectors were working as hard as possible to see
things were being done properly. He should be doing things
in the office, in terms of looking at the management and
surveyance aspects of reservoir development, to ensure
things were not being done that only benefitted industry,
but benefitted the state of Alaska as well, he said.
MR. JOHNSTON wanted to build a decent program for the state
and show that the Commission was strong, committed to
resource development, and was doing those things that it was
originally intended to do.
Number 314
CO-CHAIR GREEN interjected that this was not a budget
hearing, but an overview of the Commission. For the benefit
of the members, he added a little insight to the history of
the Commission that went back before 1983. He alleged the
Commission, in the 1970s, was called the Division of Oil and
Gas, and it was a division under the DNR. In about 1978 or
so there was legislation passed that created the
Conservation Commission much like the Texas Railroad
Commission. Soon thereafter what is now the Division of Oil
and Gas and at the same time the Division of Mines, under
DNR, were under one Division called the Division of Minerals
and Energy Management. That became such a large cumbersome
thing through various reasons it was split and those two
divisions became the landowner, he advised.
CO-CHAIR GREEN advised further that in 1983 the Commission
was established and given police power. He thought this was
a very good sign.
Number 353
MR. JOHNSTON emphasized the statutory authorities, and was
amazed at the Commission's potential, given the ability to
subpoena witnesses and records. He felt that was a powerful
tool that ought to be utilized when and where appropriate.
Again, he argued for a certain capability to do that.
CO-CHAIR GREEN was sympathetic to the Commission's problems,
and was certain that when there was separate funding for
this specific project it should be addressed very definitely
in the budget review.
MR. JOHNSTON apologized for his frustrations.
Number 365
REPRESENTATIVE KAY BROWN concurred generally with Mr.
Johnston about the need for more resources for the
Commission. She requested a brief discussion of Mr.
Johnston's estimation of the state's knowledge of what
effect gas sales would have. She noted the Commission's
most pressing issues for the coming year were to investigate
the effects of gas sales in Prudhoe Bay, and advised of her
knowledge gained during the 17th Legislative Session on the
effect of premature gas sales.
MR. JOHNSTON surmised the development of gas sales was a
priority of the governor. He advised that in November, 1990
or 1991, the Commission held hearings under the expansion of
the Prudhoe Bay Municipal Gas Project. Part of that
testimony was to bring the state up to date on what had gone
on in the development of Prudhoe Bay, which disclosed in
part, that premature gas sales created the potential of
losing oil recovery. Depending on the dates, offtake rates,
and a lot of different factors, estimates of plus or minus
400 million to one billion barrels of oil were potentially
at risk, he concluded.
Number 403
CO-CHAIR GREEN clarified Mr. Johnston was talking about
Prudhoe Bay.
MR. JOHNSTON concurred. He commented on the size of Prudhoe
Bay, and declared the Commission would like to understand
that effect a lot better. Currently, the Commission had no
way to independently verify the information it received from
industry, but simply looked at it from an engineering
perspective, he said, and wondered whether that was proper
state oversight. He said further that when you had 400
million to one billion barrels of oil at risk that meant
some serious dollars, and that was something that ought to
be looked at very seriously.
MR. JOHNSTON spoke of the Commission's request earlier this
year for $500,000 to audit the production models of the
Prudhoe Bay owners: Exxon, BP and Arco. An independent
model by the Commission would cost 10 times that, he
declared. The Commission wanted to audit the models to see
what they were saying and whether they were done properly.
Unfortunately, that request was not forthcoming and, the
Commission had to establish a gas octane rate, he added.
MR. JOHNSTON iterated that with 400 million to one billion
barrels of oil possibly at risk, it made sense to "throw a
little money at this thing to make sure you got the right
answer."
Number 444
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if the prevention of waste was also one
of the Commission's mandates.
MR. JOHNSTON declared once the proposal got serious and an
actual proposition was put forth, the next thing the
Commission had to do was establish the gas offtake. He
noted a gas offtake rate had been established back when
Prudhoe Bay came on, in Conservation Order 145, which he
believed was in 1979. He wanted to ensure the offtake rate
was proper and if not, it should be changed.
Number 459
REPRESENTATIVE HARLEY OLBERG clarified 400 million to one
billion barrels of oil would be at risk if natural gas was
withdrawn.
MR. JOHNSTON replied in the affirmative, but added the key
question was to assume. He noted currently gas was being
used to maintain pressure at the reservoir, and gas sales
would deplete that pressure at a greater rate than if there
were no gas sales. This could be mitigated by expanded
water floods, he believed, and mentioned the Commission's
interest in a plan of attack that would optimize recovery of
both resources; not benefit the recovery of just gas or just
oil, but look at it as hydrocarbon.
Number 480
MR. JOHNSTON stated in that equation the Commission wanted
to understand the mechanisms, alternatives, and mitigation
techniques on proposed gas sales, and how they would be
offset. He cautioned the need for at least an understanding
of what was occurring and thought there might be some other
ways to go about that with some sophisticated water flooding
techniques, flooding behind the gas cap, or other techniques
that were not yet understood. He believed gas sales were
greater, but should be done in an intelligent manner.
Number 497
CO-CHAIR GREEN wondered if it was fair to assume that what
would be good from the Commission's standpoint would also be
primarily parallel with what the operators would think. He
also wondered if the operators would not be concerned about
giving up 1.4 million to a billion barrels of oil toward gas
sales, given the tremendous difference in value.
CO-CHAIR GREEN noted the operators had recently spent about
one million dollars for a GHX2 project that recycled gas.
He asked if that fell within the Commission's purview.
MR. JOHNSTON acknowledged the Commission played a role in
the GHX2 project. He was convinced that industry was doing
everything possible to properly manage the reservoir.
Number 508
CO-CHAIR LEMAN acknowledged the presence of Senator Sharp, a
member of the Senate Special Committee on Oil and Gas, and
noted they were still in a work session.
REPRESENTATIVE BROWN concurred with the observation that the
state's interest ran parallel to that of the producers. She
understood dozens or hundreds of different scenarios for
reservoir development were looked at, of which the
Commission might end up seeing maybe one or two. She
believed there was real value in having a thorough
understanding of all options, and hoped the committee could
spend a little more time on this in the future. She felt
there were a lot of things to contemplate here in respect to
current policies.
Number 517
CO-CHAIR GREEN believed there could be a difference even
though one might be tracking value versus waste. He asked
what happened if the technology or the person that was
capable of running a simulation study or whatever or
overseeing another, whatever was done as a reservoir
engineer, indicated that the tactic the industry might use
was not as beneficial to the state as a different tactic.
Tape 93-2, Side B
Number 000
MR. JOHNSTON said potentially that would be sufficient to
call a public hearing. He noted the Commission had
developed a very close relationship with industry over the
years, and that industry had been very forthcoming with any
requested information. He believed industry welcomed
another set of eyes to look at this sort of thing, and would
come to the table and be generally concerned and probably
alter their affairs accordingly.
MR. JOHNSTON pointed out the Commission had tremendous
statutory power to compel sworn testimony and records to be
submitted, and to do those things that the state would have
to do to ensure their interest was being protected. He
added the Commission would issue a conservation order that
would be very clear as to the Commission's intent.
Number 030
CO-CHAIR GREEN noted the Commission had access to
information from every well that had been drilled and
tested, as well as subsurface information.
MR. JOHNSTON disputed that statement, but acknowledged the
Commission had a tremendous library with all the well log
tapes and a lot of written records. He advised the
Commission was currently making a backup copy of every tape,
and that currently there were over six gigabits of data that
the Commission was trying to preserve for future
generations.
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if some of the Commission's information
was confidential.
MR. JOHNSTON replied in the affirmative. He said
information on the Cook well was classified.
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if it was a matter of increasing the
Commission's staff to be able to stay abreast of how the
data was manipulated.
Number 047
MR. JOHNSTON preferred to have additional capabilities for
some of the issues that were constantly cropping up. He
hoped the Commission could have the capability on par with
what the state was willing to put into its pre-sale analysis
capabilities.
SENATOR BERT SHARP inquired whether the Commission in the
past had ever found significant errors of judgment as far as
field production, and if the Commission had ever ordered or
forced, through serious negotiation, an adjustment for a
field development or production plan.
MR. JOHNSTON talked about the development of Prudhoe Bay and
the modeling effort that was done which showed Prudhoe Bay
was rate sensitive. Based on that, the Commission had
established an offtake rate of 1.5 million barrels a day.
Had that rate not been established there might have been
production in excess of that which would have meant
significant loss of revenues for that field, he stated. The
Commission in the early 1980s did something that had proven
itself many times over in terms of recovery from Prudhoe
Bay, he added.
Number 094
MR. JOHNSTON was convinced industry was doing a very good
job, but would much rather have a program where he could
gather his own conclusions than be reliant totally on what
industry was telling him. He recognized budgets needed to
be cut, and the need to keep operations efficient. He
stated the Commission was willing to step into that role and
take on certain things for other agencies to rely on the
Commission.
CO-CHAIR GREEN appreciated the presentation and presumed if
the Committee or the work group from the Senate had any
questions they could submit them through him or directly to
the Commission.
MR. JOHNSTON said he would be honored if anyone contacted
him directly to talk further. He hoped to have a commission
that the state could be proud of and to that end, requested
the committee's support.
Number 110
JIM EASON, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS (the Division),
DNR, gave an overview of the Division. In his estimation
the Division was fairly small, but powerful. He expounded
on the types of leases owned by the state, with different
royalty provisions, different lengths and effective dates,
and different provisions with regard to deductibles from
their royalty payment. The Division kept track of whether
leases were being honored and in proper form, and received
bonuses as well as royalties and rental payments on the
state leases. Managing the units was another responsibility
of the Division, he added.
MR. EASON explained that unitization of interest meant that
since fields were larger than a single lease, a number of
people picked up leases next to each other then pooled their
leases into one lease. After a determination was made of
how much each lessee owned, it could then be determined how
much each lessee owed. He referred committee members to the
unit map in the packets he passed out and discussed some
different areas on the map and different drilling points.
Number 289
KEN BOYD, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS, DNR,
advised that the numbers on the maps had a series of tables
that referred to each well.
MR. EASON believed the oil and gas leasing program was a
very important part of understanding the Division's work.
He disclosed the state had offered leases on about 14
million acres of state owned land. He explained that a sale
began by announcing the sale and calling for comments; then,
over the five year scheduled period and the two years
immediately preceding the sale a number of things happened,
including a systematic call for specific information, an
opportunity for public, state, and other agencies to make
comments for consideration by the commissioner for terms of
that sale. There were a few exempt sales that did not have
to go through this process, he added.
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked how the Division went about determining
which areas to lease.
MR. EASON reiterated a call for comments on the sale was
made, a call for recommendations from the public, industry
or any interested party.
Number 382
REPRESENTATIVE CYNTHIA TOOHEY inquired whether data from the
original lease could be used to speed up the process.
MR. EASON replied in the affirmative.
Number 429
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked whether the hearings created the
differences among the lease requirements from one sale to
another.
MR. EASON clarified they were not hearings, but confidential
closed discussions.
CO-CHAIR GREEN was under the impression that the Division
heard from environmentalists, agencies, and the public, and
that some of those requirements in order to allow the lease
sales to go forward might cause stipulations on one lease
that would not necessarily be on another.
Number 493
MR. EASON concurred. He added that over time the Division
had developed minimal requirements that brought potential
problems to the surface. Those things were consistent with
and a requirement of each lease. The Division noted
specific problems that people brought up, as well as
suggestions for eliminating those problems, he said.
MR. EASON talked about methane being a natural, dry gas. He
pointed out methane was trapped in coal beds.
Number 521
MR. BOYD advised coal bed methane was a large project that
the Division hoped would go on for several years. He
disclosed the Division was asking for $300,000 to compile
data, do research, map and analyze areas with the potential
for generating coal bed methane. If successful, the
Division would then request additional funds to begin a
drilling program, he stated.
MR. BOYD added that cystic data was generated by putting
sound waves into the ground. He said, "You are basically
looking at subsurface and it takes a specialist to take this
data, combine it into a map and then analyze the results."
Tape 93-3, Side A
Number 000
MR. BOYD spoke about gravity and magnet data. He advised
the Division would compile this data to use as a marketing
tool.
MR. EASON added gravity and magnetic data were first paths,
and a companion piece to go with a piece of legislation that
the administration intended to introduce. "We have large
block licensing bill, and this is a companion piece of
leasing apparatus that does not replace or supercede our
competitive leasing program," he said.
MR. EASON believed competitive leasing worked just fine in
Cook Inlet and on the North Slope. He noted there had been
the opportunity to offer leases in many of the interior
basins for years under the competitive leasing provisions,
but there simply had been no interest. Over the past two
years the Division has looked at alternatives that would
draw attention, but the strike against competitive leasing
was the fact that the lease size itself was relatively
small, which had the potential of forcing people to get a
lot of competing interest that did not want to do things at
the same time, he said.
MR. EASON proposed to make available those areas with
undefined oil and gas potential an option, which would allow
a proposal to come in for certain areas to be offered and
for a process that would involve iterations of picking
competitive offers to perform work over a specified period
of time in an area, the value of which would be the value of
the offering.
MR. EASON added there would be no competitive bonus
associated with the offering, but people would have the
opportunity to compete dollar to dollar on an exploration
program. The one that combined their interest, suggested
the most efficient, cost effective, and yet the most
thorough exploration of that area would have the right then
to select certain areas, as well as certain conditions to
convert portions or all of that area to a lease after
exploration, he concluded.
Number 055
CO-CHAIR LEMAN expressed interest in lease sales, but
deferred questions since the committee would be dealing with
that in the future.
SENATOR SHARP asked about the API in the old Kuparuk field.
He recalled it being very high.
MR. EASON concurred with Senator Sharp's recollection, but
could not remember the exact number. He added Point
Thompson was very high, over 58 and higher. Seal Island had
a fairly high API gravity, and several discoveries from 1984
on have had much higher gravity than that of Prudhoe Bay, he
added.
SENATOR SHARP asked if the API at Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk
was 26, 27, or 28 average.
MR. EASON alleged Prudhoe Bay was about 28 and dropping, and
Kuparuk was in the lower 20s. He added Miller Point was
even lower.
Number 073
CO-CHAIR GREEN explained that the API gravity was a formula
based on a specific gravity as well as the specific gravity
of water and the specific gravity of the particular
hydrocarbon. Through this formula a number is developed:
The higher the number the more water; the less viscous, the
more vital the oil, he said.
MR. EASON added that generally, the higher the level the
better the oil was considered to be because it was easier to
handle and generally had better refining characteristics.
He explained that the owners of the pipeline had instituted
among themselves a penalty called the pumpability factor,
which said if your oil did not pump as fast and a more drag-
reducing agent had to be put in, an additional penalty would
be incurred. He believed this was a very legitimate thing
to do while there was a constraint on the volume that could
be put through there.
Number 140
CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if consideration had ever been given to
utilizing the same technically trained people used by the
Commission and if that would raise the problem of
confidentiality.
MR. EASON replied in the affirmative. However, in the past
he had recommended a better cross of technical staff on both
sides. He added there was no problem with confidentiality
as long as data from private lands was being reviewed. As a
matter of convenience and cost savings the Division and the
Commission had the authority to take copies of all surveys
done as well as other information from each well as drilled,
he added.
Number 170
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if Mr. Eason was personally
concerned or confident about Alaska's future.
MR. EASON stated that he had recently sold his house, and
personally was very concerned about Alaska's future. He
believed there was still a lot of oil in Alaska that would
be spread out over a large area and small accumulations that
would require more and more to invest. He concluded that
the North Slope oil was going to really decline and the kind
of money that we have been used to having just was not going
to be there anymore.
Number 222
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further testimony, CO-CHAIR GREEN adjourned
the meeting.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|