01/30/2003 03:17 PM House O&G
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON OIL AND GAS
January 30, 2003
3:17 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Vic Kohring, Chair
Representative Mike Chenault, Vice Chair
Representative Hugh Fate
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to open
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
Alaska, to oil and gas exploration, development, and production.
- MOVED HJR 6 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HJR 6
SHORT TITLE:ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
SPONSOR(S): OIL & GAS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/24/03 0059 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/24/03 0059 (H) O&G, RES
01/30/03 (H) O&G AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
BEN GRENN, Staff
to Representative Vic Kohring
House Special Committee on Oil and Gas
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the House Special
Committee on Oil and Gas, sponsor of HJR 6.
MARK MYERS, Director
Division of Oil & Gas
Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6.
DEB MOORE, Arctic Coordinator
Northern Alaska Environmental Center
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to oppose HJR 6.
ANDREA DOLL
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HJR 6; expressed the need to
review alternative sites and energy sources; said the time to
view resources as the state's sole [source of revenue] is
probably gone.
DEBBIE MILLER
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to vote against HJR 6.
LUCI BEACH, Executive Director
Gwich'in Steering Committee
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HJR 6, testified that the
Gwich'in Nation supports the Inupiat Nation in opposing offshore
drilling; indicated the caribou calving grounds in ANWR should
be left alone.
KIMBERLY R. DUKE, Executive Director
Arctic Power
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HJR 6.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 03-1, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR VIC KOHRING called the House Special Committee on Oil and
Gas meeting to order at 3:17 p.m. Representatives Kohring,
Chenault, Fate, McGuire, Crawford, and Kerttula were present at
the call to order. Representative Rokeberg arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
HJR 6-ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
CHAIR KOHRING announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 6, Urging the United States Congress
to pass legislation to open the coastal plain of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, Alaska, to oil and gas exploration,
development, and production.
Number 0314
BEN GRENN, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, House Special
Committee on Oil and Gas, Alaska State Legislature, testified on
behalf of the House Special Committee on Oil and Gas, the
sponsor of HJR 6. Mr. Grenn read the sponsor statement as
follows:
Expanding Alaska's resource-based industries remains
imperative if we wish to increase the state's economic
base. Although other sectors of the economy may
provide jobs, they more than likely would not be able
to support the financial infrastructure of state
government to the extent that natural resource
development does, especially the oil and gas industry.
Most reliable indicators show Alaska's North Slope oil
is in decline. Geologists have said that one of the
best prospects for new discoveries lies within the
"1002 section" of the Arctic National [Wildlife]
Refuge, which has been set aside by Congress for
potential exploration and development. It seems that
a prudent course of action would be to open this area
of the Arctic coastal plain so that Alaskans may reap
the economic benefits therein.
The idea behind House Joint Resolution 6 is not new.
An ANWR [Arctic National Wildlife Refuge] resolution
has been introduced on numerous occasions in the past
and has always enjoyed overwhelming support of the
governor and legislature as well as the general
public. Alaska's chances of moving ahead on this
vital project have been greatly increased now that
George W. Bush is President. We need to take
advantage of this opportunity and once again send our
message to the nation's Capitol.
Number 0448
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA noted that there is no mention of Arctic
Power [which has been given money by the legislature in the past
to help open ANWR to exploration and development]. She asked
whether [funding for] Arctic Power would surface in the budget.
CHAIR KOHRING related his expectation that a funding request for
Arctic Power will be addressed in the budget, but that he didn't
know the amount.
MR. GRENN added that he believes Arctic Power will be requesting
close to $3 million this session.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered his understanding that there
would be a request for supplemental [funding], although he was
unsure of the amount.
CHAIR KOHRING directed attention to page 3, lines 12-14, which
specifies that activity will be conducted in a manner that
protects the environment and the naturally occurring population
of the Porcupine caribou herd. Furthermore, the resolution
includes a reference to ensuring that any development doesn't
adversely impact the environment or wildlife populations.
Number 0598
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD told members that he is glad HJR 6
specifies that the state's workforce will be used to the maximum
extent possible [in opening ANWR].
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that the aforementioned language would
benefit the labor unions as well as the nonunion labor entities.
Number 0642
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that he was pleased the 90-
percent provision was included in the resolution. However,
whether the congressional delegation will have success with that
[remains to be seen]. He recalled that the last ANWR
legislation in Congress had a 50-percent provision and was
vetoed by then-President Clinton. Representative Rokeberg asked
if staff could [gather] polling data that might reflect how the
people of the state perceive this.
CHAIR KOHRING pointed out that [backup material] says 75 percent
of Alaskans support this resolution. He offered to research the
specifics of the poll which produced that data.
Number 0864
MARK MYERS, Director, Division of Oil & Gas, Department of
Natural Resources (DNR), conveyed his appreciation of the
resolution. He remarked that with a half-full pipeline and
about 8 billion barrels of remaining reserves, the potential in
ANWR is viewed as similar to that available in currently
remaining reserves. Should exploration be successful, there
could be a sizable amount of production. Furthermore, oil from
ANWR would extend the life of the existing North Slope
infrastructure; thus ultimately there would be more production
from state land. He described opening ANWR as one critical
element of the governor's goal of increasing oil and gas
production.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that it might be appropriate
for the next committee of referral to consider the notion that
the state has an asset valued at billions of dollars that is
flowing at 50 percent of capacity. He expressed the need to
utilize the state's transportation infrastructure. Perhaps, he
suggested, the aforementioned should be added as a "WHEREAS"
clause.
CHAIR KOHRING agreed to take that up in the next committee of
referral, the House Resources Standing Committee. With regard
to why HJR 6 is sponsored by the House Special Committee on Oil
and Gas, Chair Kohring noted that many folks were interested in
sponsoring this resolution, but said he'd thought it was best
for it to be sponsored by the committee as a whole. He said
that in the future he will speak to the committee members before
introducing legislation sponsored by the committee.
The committee took a very brief at-ease at 3:30 p.m.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE thanked Mr. Myers for the time he'd spent
giving the overview of the Division of Oil & Gas during the
interim.
MR. MYERS offered his appreciation for the opportunity to
provide the overview and receive feedback from the legislators.
Number 1131
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if Mr. Myers had a guesstimate of
the amount of oil left in the ground on the North Slope, in the
event that a major new find isn't brought on line.
MR. MYERS reiterated that there are about 8 billion barrels of
remaining reserves, which would [move production] past the year
2020. However, the question becomes one of economics.
Furthermore, [in order to function] the pipeline needs
approximately 200,000-300,000 barrels of throughput a day
without significant major modifications. As production falls,
the [pipeline] becomes less economic, more vulnerable, and
subject to changes in oil prices. Therefore, Mr. Myers said, a
series of new discoveries would be necessary, as well as an
increase in heavy oil production.
MR. MYERS told members he didn't believe anyone could judge [the
amount of] the remaining reserves on state lands. He related
his optimism and belief, though, that there is at least as much
[on the North Slope] as in reserves. Moreover, there is
potential with the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A).
However, if [the sites] are found farther and farther from the
infrastructure, in smaller accumulations, the economics of some
of those accumulations may not be that good.
MR. MYERS mentioned the "other hope" of producing natural gas
using the same infrastructure that exists at Prudhoe Bay and
Point Thomson, which would extend the life of the oil fields at
those spots and create more liquids production. Still, in order
to increase production, there must be new discoveries, including
state land, NPR-A, and ANWR.
Number 1286
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether the prediction that ANWR
[could produce] six months of American energy use is still in
the ballpark.
MR. MYERS answered that there is no data on actual discovered,
known oil; therefore, everything is based on exploration
potential. Exploration potential looks at the existing seismic
data, a fairly loose grid of data; the outcrops in the
surrounding area and the oil discoveries surrounding ANWR are
reviewed, and one takes an educated guess. The last major
educated guess was done by the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) in 1995 and was reviewed again in 1998. Therefore, there
is a range of undiscovered resource from, on the low end, about
$4.3 billion barrels to about $11.8 billion barrels on the high
end. He specified that this range refers to recoverable oil and
gas regardless of price. The mean number is about 7.4 billion
barrels of oil, but this number is still hypothetical.
Number 1416
MR. MYERS emphasized that one would have to drill in order to
find out [how much oil is present]. However, all the geological
elements to oil and gas discoveries appear to be present. With
regard to how large the fields will be, Mr. Myers said that no
one really knows because the data isn't good enough to fine-tune
any estimates. Mr. Myers said although the latest USGS
estimates are good and look at the recent North Slope
discoveries and technology, those numbers remain estimates.
MR. MYERS, in further response to Representative Kerttula,
explained that the KIC [Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation] well was
the only onshore well in the North Slope area. This well was
drilled on Native-owned land. Mr. Myers noted that the data is
confidential and thus not available in any of these assessments.
This well qualified for extended confidentiality; until ANWR is
opened for leasing, therefore, the data on that well remains
confidential. However, there are a series of wells drilled to
the offshore areas, some of which encountered oil and gas and
some of which are oil and gas fields; on shore there is the
Point Thomson field that adjoins ANWR.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if there had been any further
development since the KIC well was drilled.
MR. MYERS replied no and explained that the conditions under
which the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation obtained the
subsurface required the corporation to drill during a certain
period of time, which has expired at this point. Likewise,
seismic data isn't allowed to be captured on a speculative
basis. Therefore, the only new data is the data on the
adjoining state lands, reassessment of the 3-D [seismic] data
originally processed in the mid-1980s, and new geological
fieldwork done by the USGS and the University of Alaska. He
noted that information integrated into the new report was the
more recent discoveries on state land. He explained that old
geology reviewed the large structural thrust faults in ANWR,
while the newer assessments suggest that the traps are more
subtle and similar to Point Thomson in many ways.
Number 1581
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG turned to the new 3-D technology. If
Congress were to authorize seismic exploration of the "1002
section" of ANWR, he asked, would the new technology allow the
amount of area occupied and drilled to be restricted?
MR. MYERS replied that the 3-D seismic information would allow
the evaluation of the discovery of a new well with very few
delineation wells. Furthermore, the technology would allow the
pad locations to be more accurately placed, and the pad size
could be minimized because there would be a better idea with
regard to how many wells were necessary to develop the
reservoir. Also, directional-drilling technology is
dramatically improving: one can drill a lot farther from a
single point, resulting in fewer pads drilled. Mr. Myers
informed the committee of the arctic-platform technology that
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation is working on, which would in
some cases negate the need to lay gravel, because a platform
above the ground would produce much of the oil and gas.
Therefore, the existing and future technology make the footprint
smaller than anticipated in 1995.
Number 1719
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether 3-D seismic exploration,
without drilling, would provide enough information to determine
whether there are reserves [in ANWR] that deserve exploitation.
MR. MYERS answered that [the 3-D seismic information] would
provide a better idea with regard to the potential [for oil and
gas]. However, the 3-D seismic information isn't typically good
enough because it needs to be calibrated with a few wells in
order to move to the development stage. Moreover, if the 3-D
seismic information were shot before leasing, whoever had that
data would have a huge competitive advantage. Therefore, there
is a question regarding who would pay for the 3-D surveys and
who would receive the data.
MR. MYERS also reported that 3-D surveys done prior to leasing
impact the bonus bids and the way bidding competition occurs.
Therefore, he related his belief that the only way to
practically do it is to either get a consortium of companies
that are willing to buy the data and have them shoot the data
together and go to the lease sale, or else the federal
government would have to pay to shoot the data and make it
publicly available. Both scenarios would result in a budgetary
impact. Mr. Myers said he believes that individual companies
would be reluctant to shoot a survey themselves, although for
environmental reasons [it is best] to only shoot one survey [for
an area].
Number 1844
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if drilling stratigraphic wells or
other wells in combination with [the 3-D seismic information]
would provide adequate information [to determine whether a site
deserves exploration]. He also asked whether a delineated
(indisc.) at the whip stock of the other directional-drilled
well would be helpful.
MR. MYERS responded that it would be extremely helpful. The 3-D
seismic with a couple of wells, and calibrating the rock
velocities and characteristics - along with getting direct
measurements of the quality of the reservoir, including the
porosity, permeability, and fluid information - would provide a
very good idea [as to whether a site deserves exploration].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG related his view that if there were a
program that could more accurately predict what is at a site,
then it might be easier to sell this concept to the citizens of
this country.
CHAIR KOHRING said he would be pleased to explore that avenue
further.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that [3-D seismic and
drilling to determine whether a site deserves exploration] could
be done in the wintertime when the potential ecological damage
would be minimized.
CHAIR KOHRING suggested that such action may tip the scales in
passage of the opening of ANWR as part of the congressional
energy package.
Number 1951
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked whether Mr. Myers had any idea
with regard to the contact the state or oil companies have had
with the indigenous people, the Gwich'in, who are protesting the
opening of ANWR.
MR. MYERS answered that he doesn't have a lot of knowledge with
regard to the interaction between the state or the federal
government and the Gwich'in. However, he pointed out that there
has been much discussion with the North Slope Borough, KIC, and
the folks in Kaktovik and Barrow who have strongly supported
[the opening of ANWR].
CHAIR KOHRING offered to contact the Gwich'in if provided with a
means of contact.
Number 2067
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT returned to Representative Rokeberg's
comments regarding making people in Alaska and the U.S. as a
whole understand the complexity of this issue. He pointed out
that ANWR [encompasses] about 19 million acres of land. The
proposal is to drill on 1.5 million possible acres, with a total
imprint of probably no more than 2,000 acres. Furthermore,
technological advances basically shrinks the footprint,
especially when compared with drilling that occurred in Prudhoe
Bay. He offered his belief that such information needs to be
spread to the public.
CHAIR KOHRING pointed out that page 2 specifies the minimal
amount of land that will be explored and potentially drilled.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG informed Mr. Myers that he has pending
legislation that relates to the distinction in royalty payment
between old leases and new leases. Representative Rokeberg
inquired as to the percentage of the leases entered into before
1980 and those after 1980. He also inquired as to any projected
trends. He related his understanding of Mr. Myers' comments
that there will have to be a substantial amount of new
production in order to keep production level [for the Trans-
Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS)].
Number 2209
MR. MYERS answered with his belief that it's about 70 percent on
old leases and about 30 percent for those leases before the 1979
change in the percentage to the permanent fund. Mr. Myers said,
"Certainly, the newer leases in the areas - if we're successful
- a higher the percentage of the production will come from the
areas that would have the 50:50 split between the permanent and
general fund versus the 75:25." Therefore, the trend will
[rest] on exploration success, with a higher percentage going to
the permanent fund over the long term because [production will
be occurring] more on those leases entered into after 1979. He
offered to get the exact numbers to Representative Rokeberg
tomorrow.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if it would be correct to say that
any revenues coming from NPR-A, ANWR, and other newly released
areas would fall under the 50-percent formula.
MR. MYERS explained that the NPR-A revenues go to the impact
fund and thus are treated very differently. With regard to the
split on the 90 percent in ANWR, Mr. Myers said he didn't have
the answer. However, he offered his assumption that those would
be considered post-1979 leases and considered the 50:50 split,
since the leases would be new. He offered to check on that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that Mr. Myers' testimony is
that, because of the impact fund, all the reserves in the NPR-A
go to the North Slope Borough. Therefore, from NPR-A
development there has almost zero impact or benefit to the state
treasury. Representative Rokeberg pointed out that ANWR would
be a new lease, and therefore would be at the 50-percent rate.
Representative Rokeberg highlighted that Prudhoe Bay, at 75-
percent contribution, remains the large player, and yet Prudhoe
Bay is where the major decline is.
Number 2366
DEB MOORE, Arctic Coordinator, Northern Alaska Environmental
Center, urged the committee to oppose HJR 6. She informed the
committee that the Northern Alaska Environmental Center is a
nonprofit organization that promotes conservation of the
environment in the Interior and Arctic Alaska through advocacy,
education, and sustainable resource development. Ms. Moore said
the majority of the members of the Northern Alaska Environmental
Center are Alaskans - Alaskans who care deeply about protecting
the wildness of the Arctic refuge and want to see this area
protected. [Many of these people] feel almost completely
unrepresented at either the state or national level. Members of
the Northern Alaska Environmental Center don't want this area to
be drilled. "The Arctic refuge is America's only completely
protected Arctic ecosystem," she said.
Number 2420
MS. MOORE recalled Representative Chenault's earlier statements
regarding the relatively small area of drilling [to open ANWR]
when compared with the large size of the refuge. She disagreed
with that notion and offered the analogy that the amount of
drilling would be [proportional] to the size of a postcard in a
conference room. She explained that with that analogy, one must
remember that the postcard would first be put through a shredder
and then the pieces would be spread across the room. Then the
postcard pieces would be [connected] with gravel roads and
pipelines. That would represent the impact, she said. Although
where the pipeline would actually touch the ground would total
2,000 acres, it would sprawl across 1.6 million acres. She
continued:
Rather than developing for fossil fuels in this unique
and vital Arctic ecosystem, our state and federal
governments should be seeking ways to decrease our
nation's demands for fossil fuels. There are reliable
and sensible means for achieving these ends, such as
energy conservation, alternative energies, and
improving energy efficiency; all of these can reduce
our dependence on oil without sacrificing
environmental protection.
Even if the United States continues to rely on fossil
fuels, we cannot drill our way to energy independence
for national security. We [U.S.] have, at most, 2-3
percent of the world's oil reserves; yet we use about
25 percent of the [world's] oil consumption. It is
not possible to produce our way to oil independence,
even if we sacrifice all of our wilderness areas,
parks, refuges, and coastlines. The only way to
reduce dependence on foreign oil is through
conservation and alternative energy supplies.
Number 2498
MS. MOORE turned to the resolution's statement regarding the
protection of the Porcupine caribou herd and the environment.
She related her belief that the best way to protect these areas
is to not drill there. She said, "Allowing the wilderness and
wildlife values of the Arctic refuge coastal plain to be
exchanged for a short-term supply of oil is unacceptable. We
urge the committee to oppose [HJR] 6 and send the United States
Congress a message of protection instead."
Number 2526
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA related her understanding of Ms. Moore's
testimony that the footprint [for ANWR] will be an acre or two
in one area and an acre or two in another area; the acreage
won't be contiguous.
MS. MOORE answered that her understanding from geologists is
that ANWR will be spread over the area, and that the [actual
drilling sites] would be interconnected with pipelines and
roads. Therefore, the 2,000 acres actually refers to the areas
where [a structure] actually touches the ground. However, she
said, she understood that there will be lots of areas in which
the pipeline exists but doesn't touch the ground and isn't
included in the 2,000 acres [of development].
Number 2581
ANDREA DOLL began by saying that although an Alaskan, she was
speaking on behalf of millions of Americans who believe in the
title "Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" - she emphasized the
word "National" in the name. Ms. Doll pointed out that this
land has been held in trust for the American people. She said
she didn't believe that the land had been held in trust
primarily for the benefit of this state. Furthermore, she
related her belief that this land has been held in trust for the
Gwich'in people, who hold the land sacred.
MS. DOLL turned to the question of why the choice would be to
drill. She said she couldn't help but think that choosing
drilling saves "us" from the hard choices with alternative
energy and alternative sites. Ms. Doll urged the committee to
take a larger view than the boundaries of the state. The
country as a whole has spoken loudly [in support of] preserving
this site, she said. Ms. Doll concluded by asking the committee
to look for alternative sites and alternative [energy sources].
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD agreed that more oil drilling does keep
"us" from making [the aforementioned] hard choices. However, he
suggested that it makes [more sense] for [the U.S.] to wean
itself from the Middle Eastern oil rather than domestic sources.
He further suggested that weaning the U.S. from Middle Eastern
oil would hasten the day [this country] moves to alternative
energy sources.
MS. DOLL questioned how much the government wants to wean [the
country] from Middle Eastern oil. She pointed out to the tax
benefits given to people purchasing high gasoline consumption
automobiles and the actual money put up for alternative energy
sites and studies. "If we are half as interested in looking for
those kinds of things as we are, seemingly, ... I think we could
come up with some real good choices here," she added.
Number 2670
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD related his belief that if the
environmental community put as much energy behind weaning the
U.S. from Middle Eastern oil as is put forth to stop drilling in
ANWR, there would be some real headway with not using imported
oil. He said that an import tax on imported oil would be the
best [solution], and therefore he questioned why that wouldn't
be pursued.
MS. DOLL responded that this environmental community to which
Representative Crawford refers is "everybody in the United
States." She stressed that everyone wants to protect the
environment because without it there is nothing, and therefore
everyone is on the same side and wants to preserve this.
Number 2787
REPRESENTATIVE FATE asked if Mr. Doll and the millions of
Americans that Ms. Doll represents are aware that in ANILCA
there is what is almost a mandate to evaluate and access the
coastal plan for hydrocarbons.
MS. DOLL said she was aware of that.
REPRESENTATIVE FATE pointed out that the aforementioned
[proviso] wasn't included in ANILCA without the thought that
perhaps there would be hydrocarbon development because of the
assessment.
MS. DOLL responded, "You're right, and the day has come. And
now we can make those choices."
Number 2820
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG expressed curiosity with regard to Ms.
Doll's statement regarding the "1002 section" of ANWR, which she
referred to as the sacred ground of the Gwich'in. He asked,
"Isn't that in the backyard of the Inuit Eskimos from Kaktovik?
That's their land."
MS. DOLL agreed that [the Inuit Eskimos] border [the Gwich'in
land].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that Arctic Village
[residents] and the Gwich'in live hundreds of miles to the
south.
MS. DOLL acknowledged that there are opposing viewpoints.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG emphasized his belief that [ANWR] is
Eskimo country. Furthermore, he related his understanding that
the Gwich'in in Venetie and Arctic Village have only been there
100-150 years and actually migrated from Canada. Therefore, he
said, "To have sacred ground that reaches some kind of religious
level, in somebody else's backyard, is kind of stretching the
story here, I think."
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE remarked that Ms. Doll's comments
regarding the U.S. and energy conservation are relevant and
something to think about. However, as an Alaskan, she always
remembers when Alaska entered into statehood and the notion that
the state would support itself. She pointed out that no one
envisioned Alaska supporting itself based on its population;
rather Alaska would be a resource-based state. Therefore, if
Alaska's natural resources aren't developed [how would Alaska
hold its own keep]? [The foregoing portion in brackets,
although not on tape, was taken from the committee secretary's
log notes.]
TAPE 03-1, SIDE B
Number 2967
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said most people believe that even if
everyone in Alaska were taxed, the fiscal gap still couldn't be
closed. Therefore, she asked about Ms. Doll's thoughts as an
Alaskan.
MS. DOLL answered that the time to view resources as the state's
sole [source of revenue] is probably gone. Furthermore, this
isn't 50 years or even 30 years ago; things have changed quite a
bit. "If we think that we can maintain our keep on the
resources that we have had in the past, I think we're wrong,"
she related. She expressed the need for people to adjust, and
said the time for adjust is here. She also offered her
estimation that the American people believe it's time to adjust
and review other ways to do things. It's time for Alaskans to
bear the burden of looking at something different, she
concluded.
Number 2881
REPRESENTATIVE FATE turned to Ms. Doll's comments that the
American people are realizing the need to adjust. He indicated
that although what he reads corroborates the aforementioned, he
interprets it differently. He related his belief that the
American people realize that resources and their development of
are important, and that they can be developed properly [with the
environment in mind]. Furthermore, he stressed his belief that
this realization is occurring because people in the Lower 48 and
in Alaska need jobs and economies. "We cannot live without the
resources that we have, and people are coming to that
realization and now we have the technology to develop those
resources in a very proper and economic and environmental
manner," he stated.
CHAIR KOHRING offered to meet with Ms. Doll to discuss her
suggestions regarding alternative energy sources. He noted that
Alaska has a lot of potential in other areas, such as wind,
solar, hydroelectric, and shallow gas.
Number 2763
DEBBIE MILLER informed the committee that she has lived in
Alaska for 28 years, has taught school in Arctic Village, has
explored the Arctic refuge for many of the last 28 years, has
walked across the coastal plain on four or five different
occasions, and has witnessed the aggregation of 100,000 caribou
walking around her tent. She also noted that she has written
several books about the Arctic refuge. Ms. Miller urged the
committee to vote against HJR 6.
MS. MILLER related her belief that it's important to consider
Ms. Doll's testimony. Furthermore, this is the hundredth
birthday of the national wildlife refuge system, which was
established under President Theodore Roosevelt. This system was
established to protect habitat, wildlife, wilderness, and
America's extraordinary lands for wildlife. "It is absolutely
unconscionable to me that the State of Alaska is promoting
development of our greatest wildlife refuge," she said. This
beautiful area provides habitat for over 100 species of Arctic
wildlife including caribou and polar bears, and over 180 species
of birds.
MS. MILLER emphasized that millions of acres of state land and
billions of acres in the NPR-A are open already for development.
Furthermore, Phillips has gone on record saying it will put in
five satellite fields that will connect with Alpine. In
addition, Governor Murkowski is promoting development of the
West Sak reserves, which "are sitting in the ground where the
state makes more money developing those resources than on
federal lands in a wildlife refuge." She concluded, "It makes
no sense. We need to vote down this resolution and together, as
a state, recognize the value of this extraordinary refuge that's
a part of our nation's heritage."
Number 2600
LUCI BEACH, Executive Director, Gwich'in Steering Committee,
pointed out that the Gwich'in people have been in the [Arctic
Village] area for over 1,000 generations. She highlighted that
the Gwich'in are not Canadian. Ms. Beach related that it
saddens her when elected officials are unaware of the population
in the state and deem it necessary to consider [the Gwich'in] to
be unimportant in this issue. Ms. Beach stated that the
Gwich'in Nation supports the Inupiat Nation in opposing offshore
drilling. Although the Inupiat don't live offshore, the [Arctic
Village] area is one of their critical habitat areas for whales.
MS. BEACH noted that the Gwich'in don't live in the calving
grounds. Even during times of famine the Gwich'in people have
not entered the calving grounds, because in order for the
[Gwich'in] to survive, the caribou had to survive. "You don't
bother animals when they are in the birthing process," she
stressed. Ms. Beach pointed out that this area was not only set
aside for development but was also set aside for wilderness; so
far, she said, the wilderness value of the land has outweighed
the development potential.
Number 2495
MS. BEACH urged the committee, "Please consider us Gwich'in
people. Do not put us aside or act as if we are of no
consequence in this matter." There is no other place in the
world for the Gwich'in people to be Gwich'in, she said. "We
were Gwich'in where we were at, and because of the animals that
we hold dear to us - for what we feel that the Creator so
greatly blessed us with. Consider this to be part of our
mandate as stewards that the Creator gave us. We do not take
this position lightly," she said in closing.
Number 2426
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG returned to his earlier statement that
some of the Gwich'in had migrated from the Yukon Territory,
Canada, into the Arctic Village and Venetie areas. He asked if
that is correct.
MS. BEACH explained that the Gwich'in are similar to the Plains
Indians in that before contact [with Europeans] they were a
nomadic people. The Gwich'in are a trans-boundary nation in
Alaska and Canada, she said. Although she has heard statements
that the Gwich'in are like the Tsimshian and never really lived
in the area, she disputed that notion and said the Gwich'in have
lived in [Arctic Village] area for quite a while.
Number 2331
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA recalled that the Gwich'in were one of
the few groups that didn't participate in ANCSA, in part to
remain inside the culture. She asked if that is correct.
MS. BEACH agreed and specified that Venetie and Arctic Village
are two Gwich'in communities that opted out of the lands-claim
process in order to maintain their traditional lifestyle and not
become part of the corporate structure.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if the state or any oil companies
have sat down with the [Gwich'in people] in order to try to find
common goals and how things could proceed.
MS. BEACH answered that there has been some contact. United
States Secretary of the Interior Norton briefly visited Arctic
Village; however, the [Gwich'in people] didn't seem to make much
impact on her. Furthermore, then-U.S. Senator Frank Murkowski
visited [Arctic Village] as well. She said there probably were
other meetings.
MS. BEACH clarified that the Gwich'in aren't opposed to all oil
development; however, those areas where life begins [the calving
grounds] are critical [for the habitat], and no technology can
prevent [impact]. Therefore, those areas should be left alone,
she said.
CHAIR KOHRING remarked that HJR 6 is trying to be sensitive to
the environmental concerns of the area. He related his belief
that HJR 6 is a good middle ground in that it looks to grow the
economy while taking into consideration the environmental
concerns.
Number 2085
KIMBERLY R. DUKE, Executive Director, Arctic Power, began by
stating support for HJR 6. She informed the committee of U.S.
Senator Ted Stevens' testimony while ANWR was debated on the
U.S. Senate floor; during that debate, he'd provided a history
of how the "1002 area" was set aside for oil and gas
development. She related that in 1980, when ANILCA was settled,
U.S. Senator Stevens signed onto that agreement, which doubled
the area of the refuge to its current size of 19 million acres;
the understanding was that the 1.5 million acres of the coastal
plain would be set aside for evaluation for oil and gas. That
area was evaluated, and in 1987 the U.S. Department of the
Interior recommended development. Since then, work has
continued to secure opening [ANWR] through Congress. Therefore,
from the beginning there was the understanding that the ["1002
section" lands] would be included in oil and gas development on
the North Slope. She asserted that development is supported by
the Inupiat people living in that area, who own 92,000 acres of
the coastal plain. Furthermore, 79 percent of the population of
Kaktovik is supportive of this development, she suggested. Ms.
Duke pointed out that 8 million acres of the refuge remain in
wilderness status and will remain protected.
Number 1983
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked all of those who'd testified,
and thanked Chair Kohring for his sensitivity to the
[Gwich'in's] feelings. Representative Kerttula announced that
she is supportive of oil development in Alaska; however, because
of her respect of the Gwich'in culture and their concerns, she
couldn't support HJR 6. Representative Kerttula announced that
she wouldn't object [to the motion], though.
Number 1950
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report HJR 6 out of committee
with individual recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal
note(s). There being no objection, HJR 6 was reported from the
House Special Committee on Oil and Gas.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Oil and Gas meeting was adjourned at 4:29
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|