Legislature(1995 - 1996)
01/31/1995 10:03 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
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL & GAS
January 31, 1995
10:03 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chair
Representative Gary Davis
Representative Bill Williams
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Bettye Davis
Representative David Finkelstein
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HJR 7:Opposing the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope
crude oil; endorsing federal legislation to remove
restraints on the export of Alaska North Slope oil;
requesting the Congress of the United States to pass
legislation to permit the export of Alaska North Slope
crude oil; and urging the President of the United States
to support the legislation to lift the ban on the export
of Alaska North Slope crude oil.
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HJR 19:Supporting the lifting of the ban on the export of Alaska
North Slope crude oil; requesting the President of the
United States to present to the United States Congress a
recommendation that it is both in the national interest
to lift the ban on the export of Alaska North Slope crude
oil and discriminatory to the state to maintain the ban,
and endorsing passage of H.R. 70 and S. 70, companion
federal legislation to remove restraints on export of
that oil.
REMOVED FROM AGENDA
WITNESS REGISTER:
KEITH BURKE
The Alliance-General Manager
4220 B St., Suite 200
Anchorage, AK 99513
Telephone: (907) 563-2226
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported CS HJR 7 and urged rapid passage
JIM PALMER, Director
External Affairs
BP-Alaska
7154 Lowell Circle
Anchorage, AK 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-7464
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 7
CHUCK LOGSDON, Chief Petroleum Economist
Department of Revenue
550 W. 7th Ave, Suite 750
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 277-5627
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 7, and the removal of the export
ban
BEVERLY WARD, Director
Government Relations
ARCO Alaska, Inc.
134 N. Franklin St.
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3680
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided written statement in support of
HJR 7
PREVIOUS ACTION:
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE: EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) FINKELSTEIN, Rokeberg, Navarre,
Grussendorf, Brown, B.Davis, Porter, Davies, Kubina
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/16/95 17 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/16/95 17 (H) O&G, RES, FIN
01/18/95 73 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DAVIES
01/19/95 86 (H) COSPONSOR(S): KUBINA
01/31/95 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 19
SHORT TITLE: EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
SPONSOR(S): SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/20/95 100 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/20/95 100 (H) O&G, FIN
01/31/95 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-2, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Special Committee on Oil & Gas was called to order by
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG at 10:03 a.m. Members present at the call
to order were Representative(s) Rokeberg, Brice, G. Davis,
Finkelstein, Ogan and Williams. Members absent were Representative
B. Davis.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated there is a quorum present. He then
announced that the meeting was on teleconference with Anchorage and
Valdez.
HO&G - 01/31/95
HJR 7 - EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
Number 029
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Representative Ogan if he would move to
adopt a Committee Substitute for HJR 7. Representative Ogan so
moved. Committee Substitute for HJR 7(O&G) is now before the
committee for discussion.
Number 044
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG declared that public testimony was now open. The
Chairman then asked if the sponsor of HJR 7 would like to make any
statements.
Number 055
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID FINKELSTEIN stated this issue has been a point
of controversy for several years. There is a new interest for this
issue in the Congress of the United States and the Federal
Administration. He said with this new interest he believed that we
have a unique opportunity to change this law. The increased
position of Alaska's Congressional delegation helps to strengthen
our position as well. He mentioned there have been several new
studies conducted on this issue and they have been favorable to our
position. All of these factors provide us a very favorable
position from which to lift the ban of Alaska North Slope crude
oil.
Number 076
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Representative Finkelstein for his
comments and noted that Representative Bettye Davis joined the
committee at 10:07 a.m. Chairman Rokeberg then asked if there was
any testimony from Anchorage via teleconference.
Number 090
KEITH BURKE, General Manager of "The Alliance," testified via
teleconference and stated that Alaska needs to continue to move
forward on development and improve the economics of marginal fields
in Alaska. He said this resolution is an important piece of that
puzzle and I encourage you to pass this resolution and send it on
to the Congress of the United States so that Alaska can become more
competitive in a global market. I applaud you for the position
that you are taking on this issue and I support you completely.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Burke for his statement and called
for testimony from Jim Palmer.
Number 107
JIM PALMER, Director of External Affairs, BP-Alaska, thanked
Chairman Rokeberg for the opportunity to testify via
teleconference. Mr. Palmer indicated that he had prepared written
remarks that he would not read due to the time constraint, but he
wished them to be included in the record. Mr. Palmer stated the
removal of the export ban on Alaskan North Slope crude oil is
extremely important to the future of the oil industry in Alaska.
He stated he was very pleased that the issue has moved to the point
that it is currently at, and there is a very real chance that the
export ban will be lifted. Mr. Palmer then stated he believes that
the Clinton Administration is looking very favorably towards
removal of the ban, and that the current position of Alaska's
Congressional delegation can be of great help. Mr. Palmer then
stated he would be available to answer any questions that the
members of the committee may have.
The following statement by BP Alaska was submitted by Mr. Palmer
for the record:
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the House Oil and
Gas Committee. My name is Linda Adamany and on behalf of BP,
I am pleased to provide the following testimony to the Alaska
State Legislature. This testimony discusses the future of oil
production on Alaska's North Slope, and how artificial federal
constraints, such as the ban on its export, affect our ability
to market it efficiently.
The history of Alaska North Slope oil production is one of
remarkable achievement. In the past two decades, the oil
industry has invested more than $50 billion (in today's money
terms) in realizing the Alaska North Slope's hydrocarbon
potential.
We've nearly doubled the volume of oil we expect to recover
from the region through a combination of technological
advances and massive capital investment. In 1977, we expected
to recover less than 10 billion barrels of oil from a single
Alaska North Slope field. Today we're producing oil from a
number of fields surrounding Prudhoe Bay. The industry has
just produced our 10 billionth barrel of oil, yet we have a
similar amount in booked and likely reserves. We postponed
Prudhoe's inevitable decline by nearly four years, and today
based on the State of Alaska's own forecasts, the North Slope
is producing some 600,000 barrels more per day than were
projected less than a decade ago.
These achievements are particularly remarkable given the
competitive disadvantages of Alaska's North Slope --
disadvantages stemming primarily from harsh climatic
conditions, remoteness, and federal restrictions on access to
world crude oil markets imposed by the ANS export ban.
But today, the future of this critical domestic resource is in
double jeopardy. Production is in decline, and margins that
are the lifeblood of the ongoing investments that sustain
production are being squeezed as never before by upward
pressure on Alaska North Slope costs.
BP, along with our industry partners, have been at the
forefront of the industry in doing everything we can to enable
Alaska North Slope oil to compete effectively for investment
capital in a fiercely competitive world oil market. We've left
no stone unturned in searching for new ways to do more for
less, and we've stemmed the tide of soaring costs in the late
`80s and `90s.
We've completely retooled our relationships with contracts and
field partners. We've reduced our staff levels and overhauled
the way we do business within BP. These efforts have reduced
our operating costs and enabled us to actually reduce per
barrel operating costs in an atmosphere of declining
production without sacrificing safety or our environmental
performance.
Because of Alaska's high field development costs, as well as
restricted access to world crude oil markets, netbacks on
Alaska North Slope production are disproportionately low
vis-a-vis those of lower-cost hydrocarbon areas of the world
that have unrestricted access to crude oil markets.
Much of the Alaska North Slope production we currently project
for the year 2000 depends on investments yet to be made.
More than ever before, the environment dictates that
investments be directed to areas offering the highest margins
at the lowest risks. With the end of the Cold War and so much
of the world now competing for energy investment, returns on
those investments have become the prime consideration as
companies allocate increasingly scarce capital resources.
The competitiveness of these investments is crucial not only
to BP and the Alaskan oil industry.
Many of the individual states also hold large stakes in the
health of the domestic industry. Those with significant oil
production, like Alaska and California, realize substantial
tax and royalty revenues. They also benefit from a
significant number of jobs both directly and indirectly linked
to oil industry investment.
Much has been said and written about the hydrocarbon potential
of Alaska's North Slope. There's a general consensus that the
potential significantly exceeds reserves already produced of
both existing and potential resources and remove cash from the
system, making investments more difficult even in potentially
profitable opportunities.
It is important to understand that noncompetitive margins have
two effects. First, they reduce production of both existing
and potential resources and remove cash from the system,
making investments more difficult even in potentially
profitable opportunities.
It's no longer enough that BP and the rest of the industry,
through hard work and innovation, are reducing our costs. In
order to maintain the competitiveness of Alaskan investments,
it's critical that everyone with a stake in the future of the
Alaskan oil industry does his and her part to help ensure its
long-term health.
Federal restrictions on our ability to market Alaska North
Slope oil where it will generate the highest possible returns
hurt producers and the State of Alaska by reducing netbacks on
North Slope oil. These restrictions are costly and an
unnecessary burden on our ability to compete. Lifting these
restrictions will help to restore Alaska's competitiveness for
future investment by boosting the wellhead value of ANS crude.
The world has changed dramatically from the days when export
restrictions on ANS crude were first imposed...days of real
and perceived supply shortages and an energy crisis mentally.
Today, with open markets, improved trade flows, access to new
oil and gas provinces and significant discoveries throughout
the world, the supply-demand balance has reversed itself.
Restrictions on ANS exports that were based on fears of supply
shortages are no longer appropriate. But failure to maintain
investment because of loss of competitiveness will not help.
Removing the restrictions and providing incentives will
maximize domestic production if supply crises should occur in
the future.
BP and the Alaskan oil industry will continue to do our part
by doing all we can to make Alaska North Slope investments
competitive. But we can no longer do it alone.
By directly or indirectly relieving the burden of unnecessary
restrictions on our ability to compete, the federal government
will not only demonstrate its commitment to do its part to
enhance the competitiveness of Alaska North Slope oil, but
also to help ensure the long-term health of this critical
domestic resource.
BP strongly encourages the State of Alaska to support lifting
the ANS export ban.
Thank you for this opportunity to address these important
issues.
Number 134
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG thanked Mr. Palmer and called upon Chuck Logsdon
to provide the committee with his testimony.
Number 140
CHUCK LOGSDON, Chief Petroleum Economist, Department of Revenue,
testified via teleconference and stated he would like to strongly
endorse the resolution urging that the export ban on Alaska North
Slope crude oil be lifted. He stated that lifting the ban would
not only reduce the cost of marketing Alaska North Slope crude, it
will also increase the sales price as well, and both of these will
greatly increase the value of the resource. Mr. Logsdon stated
this higher value will not only directly increase the state's oil
revenues but it will also make investment in Alaska's oil industry
more attractive to members of the oil companies themselves. Mr.
Logsdon then stated he would be available to answer any questions
the committee may have about the technical aspects of the oil
industry.
Number 154
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Logsdon for his comments on the $700
million to $1.6 billion of potential increases to state revenues,
and there is a fiscal note which shows an impact of about $80
million in fiscal year 1996.
Number 167
MR. LOGSDON, in response to Chairman Rokeberg's question stated the
difference between the price that we are getting for the oil on the
Gulf Coast and the West Coast is due to the fact that there has
been an artificial surplus generated by the installation of the oil
export ban. Mr. Logsdon commented that as production has come down
to the current level of 1.6 million barrels per day in January, and
demand increases on the West Coast, our oil does become more
attractive to the buyers and we are getting a better price for it.
Mr. Logsdon further stated there is still a modest discount between
the two markets which will no longer exist if the oil export ban is
lifted. Mr. Logsdon said if the oil export ban is lifted, the
state should pick up between $50 million and $55 million in
additional revenue due to higher realization for our West Coast
sales. The other impact this would have would be on the cost of
transportation. Mr. Logsdon stated the cost of shipping oil to
destinations in Japan or Korea was far less than shipping it to the
West Coast.
Number 232
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Logsdon if he was familiar with the
U.S. Department of Energy study that was published in June of 1994
noting that the numbers provided by Mr. Logsdon were more
conservative than those given in the report.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG then asked if there were any questions from the
committee. Hearing none, he thanked Mr. Logsdon for his testimony
and called for other witnesses.
Number 251
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked to pose a few questions to the
sponsor of the bill if there were no more witnesses to be heard.
Number 255
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG then stated he would like to read into the record
a statement prepared by Beverly Ward, Director of Government
Relations, ARCO Alaska, Inc. Chairman Rokeberg explained that Ms.
Ward was unable to attend due to another commitment. The following
letter read was submitted for the record:
Mr. Chairman, members of the House Oil and Gas Committee, my
name is Beverly Ward. Thank you for the opportunity today to
add ARCO's voice to the chorus of those asking that the oil
export ban be lifted.
Prior to the 1994 election, we judged passage of legislation
lifting the export ban unlikely. It now appears passage is
possible.
ARCO will not benefit from elimination of the export ban. But
because of the potential benefit to the state -- and at the
request of the Knowles Administration -- we reevaluated our
long standing neutral position on this issue and decided the
time had come to join the state in working to open Pacific Rim
markets to Alaska oil.
We will make clear to members of Congress our support for
legislation elimination the export ban. We will also work
closely with the Alaska Congressional delegation, the
legislature and the Knowles Administration on this issue in
whatever way appropriate.
We applaud your efforts through HJR 7 and HJR 19 to lift the
oil export ban.
Number 283
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the change of position by ARCO and the
importance of this statement. Chairman Rokeberg asked for any
further public testimony. Hearing none, Chairman Rokeberg closed
public testimony on HJR 7. Chairman Rokeberg then called for
further discussion by the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked for a comparison between the Committee
Substitute and the original resolution.
Number 295
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that most of the changes in the original
resolution are updated statistics.
Number 300
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE then asked Chairman Rokeberg if he had the
Committee Substitute introduced and not the sponsor.
Number 302
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that Representative Brice was correct.
Number 307
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE then asked Chairman Rokeberg to explain the
process by which an Executive Order can extend the sunset date on
a statute, and questioned the reference in statute, citing the
Export Administration Act of 1979, as well as the Tax Authorization
Act. He also stated from his understanding of the first WHEREAS,
the President of the United States is the one who is currently
banning the export of North Slope oil. Representative Brice then
asked Chairman Rokeberg who was really banning the export of North
Slope oil, and stated he thought there were some inconsistencies in
the legislation. Representative Brice then pointed out in the
first WHEREAS on Page 1, Line 8, that "the President of the United
States has by Executive Order, continued the ban on the export of
Alaska North Slope crude oil contained in 50 U.S.C.S. Appx.
2406(d) (sec. 7(d) Export Administration Act of 1079) that
prohibits, with tightly restrictive exceptions, the export of
domestically produced oil transported by pipeline over the
right-of-way granted by 43 U.S.C. 1652 (sec. 203 of the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline Authorization Act); and asked Chairman
Rokeberg if the President of the United States by Executive Order
is banning the export of North Slope crude oil, or is it the
statutes that ban the export of North Slope crude oil.
Number 339
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that the sponsor of the bill could
answer these questions, stating that the first WHEREAS is the same
as the sponsor's.
Number 341
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN thanked Chairman Rokeberg and stated
that in general, the Committee Substitute has a number of
improvements. Representative Finkelstein then answered
Representative Brices's question with reference to Executive Orders
by stating that in certain areas like trade and national defense,
Executive Orders can be equivalent to a law. He then stated there
were two laws that kept the ban in place; one was the law that kept
expiring each year, and the law that is in the Export
Administration Act.
Number 360
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE then asked if that was the law that gave the
President the power by Executive Order to extend the ban.
Number 364
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he did not know the answer to
that question because he did not know if the power of Executive
Orders came from that Act. He then stated he thought that the
power of Executive Orders comes from much broader laws, that are
unrelated to this, that give the President certain powers in the
area of trade pre-existing any of this debate.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he believed the President of the United
States has unilaterally extended the ban by Executive Order. He
then stated this issue is what we are focusing on, but there was
also some statutory language that built this up. Chairman Rokeberg
then made a reference to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline Act.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated he would look into where the President
receives the power of Executive Order.
Number 386
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for other comments or testimony of the
issue at hand, noting that Representative Brice wanted to examine
some of the comparative differentials between the Committee
Substitute and the original resolution. He then stated there was
some input from the witnesses, and the U.S. Energy study from June
1994, trying to update some of the statistics. He stated in the
sponsor's original bill, there were some outdated numbers, so we
focused on changing those, as they related to the transportation
costs. He then stated, from the study we used the first WHEREAS on
Page 2, $2-$4 dollars per barrel on the transportation charge. The
differential there is that as Mr. Logsdon indicated he was using
$1.60 right now which may explain some of the lower numbers, but
the problem is that these are all speculative numbers. Chairman
Rokeberg then stated they were trying to be straightforward and
honest using the Energy Department numbers. Chairman Rokeberg
stated the key number from Alaska's standpoint is that over a seven
year period, Alaska gained $700 million-$1.6 billion in state taxes
and royalties. At this time the committee meeting was interrupted
when the building fire alarm sounded. It was quickly determined
that there was no fire in the building and the meeting resumed.
Number 428
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he thought the revenue projections to the
state were very conservative, although the timing factor could come
in to play, and he wished they would stay that way due to the fact
that over the coming seven years the revenue would help us close
the gap. One of the major things of that study was the impact on
the development of further marginal fields on the North Slope in
that area, that could generate additional lift in the job market
not only in Alaska , but in the entire United States. He then
stated the fundamental economic theory is that the greater amount
of profit that can be generated by the lift of the ban, the more
money the industry will have to put back into investment in the
field and development, even marginal fields.
Number 456
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE mentioned that it seems that once you remove
the ban you are taking off a tax.
Number 458
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the energy department's reserve additions
could be between 200 and 400 million barrels and that is an
economic result of greater investment. He stated there is also a
change in the delivery transportation prices from $2-$4 down to
$2.70. He stated the primary differences here are a result of the
use of American labor and American shipping to transport the oil to
the Pacific Rim. He stated this has the result of raising the cost
and lowering the wellhead price so that we don't get as much
benefit as we would have gotten otherwise. It is, however,
politically expedient to do this and I believe that we will get
support from labor groups, such as the United Auto Workers, who
have historically been opposed to lifting the ban. This is due to
the major impact on the balance of payments, and the decrease in
the trade deficit that this would help bring about. The auto
workers are worried that this would allow the U.S. to import more
Japanese automobiles. The Chairman asked if Representative Brice
had any further questions. Hearing none, he called for further
discussion.
Number 490
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN offered two amendments to the
resolution. Amendment 1: Page 2, Line 12, delete "reinvested" and
insert "will be available for reinvestment". Representative
Finkelstein stated these amendments were designed to make the
language more understandable. He then stated with regard to the
amendment that, we can't say for certain that money saved on
transportation costs will be reinvested in domestic exploration,
this is because they are a private company and we can't control
what they do. He then stated this will be money that will be
available for reinvestment.
Number 508
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he understood the point being made by
Representative Finkelstein and asked if there was any further
discussion of this topic. The Chairman then took a brief at-ease.
When Chairman Rokeberg resumed the meeting he asked if
Representative Finkelstein would like to move to vote on the first
amendment to HJR 7.
Number 511
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN so moved the first amendment.
Number 514
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, hearing no objection, so ordered the motion and
the first amendment was adopted.
Number 520
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN asked to correct his second amendment.
The amendment was handwritten and there were two mistakes. First
he pointed out that on the third line down, the word `available'
came up twice, and he asked to delete one of them. The second
correction on that line, change the word `discovery' to
`development'. After the corrections were made the amendment read:
Page 2, Line 16, delete "reserve additions in Alaska alone could be
as large as" and insert "the additional capital available could
lead to the development of up to an additional". The explanation
of the amendment is that, in the WHEREAS there are some technical
terms that he was not aware of. He stated that people who are
aware of economic theory of oil would understand the concept of
reserve additions so he was trying to say the same thing in a way
that would make sense. The reserve addition is the theoretical
value of having additional capital available, and what this would
mean in terms of additional areas that could be found because this
capital is available to look for it is a very complex thought and
he wanted to make it easier to understand.
Number 542
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Logsdon if he had any comments.
Number 548
MR. LOGSDON said the theory that Representative Finkelstein put
forth is correct.
Number 560
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated he was not trying to add or take
away from the theory, but his intent was just to clarify the
meaning.
Number 566
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated he appreciated the efforts of
Representative Finkelstein, but he had no problem understanding the
original draft and invited other comments.
Number 570
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated that reserve additions is a
concept that isn't self-explanatory, and that it is just a theory.
Number 574
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated his appreciation for Representative
Finkelstein's concerns, and said the language cites the energy
study that it comes from in case there is a question.
Number 580
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS stated because it cites the study is the
most valid reason for leaving the language the way it is, then he
stated he agrees with Representative Finkelstein stating that we
should make these understandable as much as possible; however, when
you cite statutes, you can't always use everyday language.
Number 590
REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN stated the reason that he is concerned
is that he wants the 500 members of Congress to be able to
understand the language being used. He then stated if the audience
is not ourselves then the language should be self-explanatory.
Number 600
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated he tends to agree with Representative
Finkelstein and stated that our main objective should be clarity
with an issue like this one.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were any further comments on this
issue. He then took a moment to review the material once again.
Number 635
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called the committee to order and asked if there
was any further discussion. Hearing none, the Chairman called for
a vote on the second amendment.
Number 638
The vote on amendment number 2 was recorded as follows:
YES: Representative(s) BRICE, B. DAVIS, FINKELSTEIN,
NO: Representative(s) ROKEBERG, G. DAVIS, OGAN, WILLIAMS
The amendment was defeated by a vote of 4 to 3.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked for any other points of discussion or
amendments. Hearing none, he stated that he would entertain a
motion to move CS HJR 7 as amended from the committee with
individual recommendations
Number 655
Representative Gary Davis so moved. Chairman Rokeberg asked if
there was an objection. Hearing none, it was so ordered.
HO&G - 01/31/95
HJR 19 - EXPORT OF ALASKA OIL
Number 658
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG declared that HJR 19 is now before the committee.
The Chairman then stated that the language of the resolution has
been incorporated into the resolution previously before the
committee, therefore consideration of HJR 19 is not necessary, and
HJR 19 is removed from the agenda.
Number 663
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the next order of business is the
selection of a Vice Chair and nominated Representative Ogan.
Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 665
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the meeting at 10: 46 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|