Legislature(1995 - 1996)
03/06/1995 08:05 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
March 6, 1995
8:05 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman
Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman
Representative Alan Austerman
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Irene Nicholia
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Williams, Co-Chairman
Representative John Davies
Representative Eileen MacLean
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kelly
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
Overview on Coalbed Methane
HB 170: "An Act relating to intensive management of identified big
game prey populations."
HEARD AND HELD
HRES - 03/06/95
*HB 195: "An Act repealing the laws authorizing milk marketing
orders and the milk advisory board."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
*(first public hearing)
WITNESS REGISTER
TOM SMITH, Geologist
Division of Oil and Gas
Department of Natural Resources
3601 C. Street, Ste. 1380
Anchorage, AK 99503
Phone: 762-2547
POSITION STATEMENT: Gave an overview on coalbed methane
DAVE JOHNSTON, Chairman
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
3001 Porcupine Drive
Anchorage, AK 99501
Phone: 279-1433
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments on coalbed methane
DAVE LAPPI, Representative
Lapp Resources
4900 Sportsman Drive
Anchorage, AK 99502
Phone: 248-7188
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments on coalbed methane
PAUL CRAIG, President
Z-Energy
2900 Boniface Parkway
Anchorage, AK 99504
Phone: 563-5686
POSITION STATEMENT: Made comments on coalbed methane
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 513
Juneau, AK 99801
Phone: 465-2327
POSITION STATEMENT: Prime Sponsor HB 170
SANDRA ARNOLD, Representative
Alaska Wildlife Alliance
P.O. Box 202022
Anchorage, AK 99520
Phone: 277-0897
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
MICHAEL TETREAU
P.O. Box 3046
Seward, AK 99664
Phone: 224-3175
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
JIM RAMSDELL
P.O. Box 2004
Seward, AK 99664
Phone: 224-2301
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
MARK LUTTRELL, President
Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental
Action Association
P.O. Box 571
Seward, AK 99664
Phone: 224-5372
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 170
OLIVER BURRIS
2801 Talkeetna
Fairbanks, AK 99709
Phone: 474-0437
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
SAM HARBO
Professor Emeritus of Wildlife
Management & Statistics
P.O. Box 10201
Fairbanks, AK 99710
Phone: 457-7815
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 170
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-28, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Resources Committee was called to order by Co-Chairman
Green at 8:05 a.m. Members present at the call to order were
Representatives Green, Ogan, Austerman and Kott. Members absent
were Representatives Williams, Barnes, Davies, MacLean, and
Nicholia.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE GREEN stated there would be a presentation on
coalbed methane. He noted there had been a test well drilled near
Wasilla last year. He announced the meeting is on teleconference
in Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Seward.
Number 040
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated one of the questions he hoped would be
answered during the presentation is what coalbed methane is. He
wondered if coalbed methane is a mineral, oil or gas. He also
questioned if coalbed methane is handled as a gas well or as a
function from a mineral interest.
TOM SMITH, GEOLOGIST, DIVISION OF OIL AND GAS, DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (DNR), gave an overview using slides. He stated
methane is a natural gas. He said as organic material is turned
into coal by heat and pressure it gives off gas. First, the coal
gives off biogenic or swamp gas. As the higher rank coals are
reached, particularly the bituminous and anthracite ranks, the coal
gives off thermogenic gas. He stressed higher rank coals will have
more gas.
MR. SMITH stated coalbeds are unique in that they are the source of
the gas and the reservoir target. A coal stores high
concentrations of methane due to the microporosity in the coal. He
said to produce coalbed methane, there is a need to get the water
out first, which is a big difference between conventional gas and
coalbed gas. In the fractures in the coal, there are large volumes
of water present. In order to get the gas to move, there is a need
to lower the pressure on the coal by dewatering it. Then the gas
will move out of the coal into the cleats or fractures toward the
well bore. As water is gradually pumped out, gas production will
increase. He noted that after seven or eight wells are drilled in
a particular area, the wells do better because the pressure has
been lowered in a large area of coal seams.
MR. SMITH told committee members that coal gas or methane gas has
long been a nuisance to miners. He said it was not until the 1970s
that coalbed methane production was done before mining occurred,
which led to the first commercial gas production in Alabama's Black
Warrior Basin in 1980. He pointed out the methane resource is very
new compared to conventional oil and gas. He stated another main
producing basin in the lower 48 is the San Juan Basin in Colorado
and New Mexico. He noted production of methane is in seven or
eight coal basins in the lower 48 currently.
Number 157
MR. SMITH stated in 1992, the San Juan Basin produced 436 billion
cubic feet of gas from about 2,000 wells, which is approximately
double the current Cook Inlet production. In the Black Warrior
Basin, 92 billion cubic feet of gas was produced. He noted the
coals in the Black Warrior Basin are much thinner. The San Juan
Basin wells produced 400,000 to 1 million cubic feet a day which
compares to the average well rate in Cook Inlet (from conventional
gas) of about 6 million cubic feet and some of the North Slope
wells producing 2 million cubic feet. He noted the methane
resource will involve smaller wells, but not significantly smaller.
MR. SMITH showed a slide which indicated how new the methane
resource is. The productions curves showed that in the last five
years, much has been learned. He also presented a slide showing
what a typical well looks like. He said there is an up hole motor
which drives a down hole pump which has two lines coming out--one
for gas and one for water. He displayed several slides showing
different wells and what is needed to get the well into production.
He noted the coals have to be stimulated to get production which
sometimes is more expensive than drilling the well. He showed an
experimental field in Alabama. He said water will always be a
problem with coalbed methane. In Alaska, discharging any water
into the surface waters is not allowed. In Alabama, the water is
treated, aerated and discharged into some of the larger rivers,
with monitoring stations down stream.
Number 225
MR. SMITH stated Alaska has a lot of coal--about one-half of the
United States (U.S.) total reserves. He calculated Alaska's coal
could contain a huge resource--1,000 trillion cubic feet of gas.
He noted, however, perhaps only ten percent will be recoverable.
He explained much of Alaska's coal is bituminous rank which is
needed for coalbed methane production. He showed a slide
indicating the locations of coal occurrences and basins in Alaska.
MR. SMITH said when evaluating the coal basins, he looked at coal
rank. He stated the coal has to be a certain rank to be
productive. Some lower rank coals are productive but that is a
rare occurrence. Ideally, the coal should be shallow--above 4,000
feet. A good reservoir extent and thickness is needed, just like
a sandstone reservoir. He added that a simple structure is best.
MR. SMITH said many of the areas in Alaska are less potential
because they are subbituminous and lignite or lower rank coal. The
North Slope and Cook Inlet are the big players in both the low rank
and the high rank coals. He stated the North Slope is one of the
biggest coal basins in the world. He pointed out the areas
interested in coalbed methane production are the bituminous and
high rank coals such as in the North Slope and the Cook Inlet. He
noted the three large areas in the Interior also--the Kobuk, the
upper and lower Koyukuk, and the Alaska Peninsula. He added these
three basins have had little exploration and the resources are
probably very rough.
Number 286
MR. SMITH said the western North Slope, northern Cook Inlet, and
the edges of Cook Inlet have high potential to provide world class
reserves of coalbed methane. He stated areas for local production
which would provide for village use would be the Alaska peninsula,
Kobuk, and the upper and lower Koyukuk. He pointed out there is
additional potential from the subbituminous and lower rank coals.
Coalbed methane is just now getting into those areas. He noted
there are a few areas where there is production from those lower
rank coals.
MR. SMITH showed a slide indicating the size of artubic basins in
Alaska. The slide contained production figures for the San Juan
Basin, the Cook Inlet and the North Slope. He noted that the San
Juan Basin shows coalbed methane only and the Cook Inlet and North
Slope areas are conventional production. He said the San Juan
Basin produces double that of Cook Inlet just from coalbed and has
an estimated 50 trillion cubic feet of reserves, compared to the
remaining reserves in Cook Inlet of roughly 2.8 trillion cubic
feet. He noted the basin area in Cook Inlet is almost twice as
big, seven times the coal reserves, and the accumulated thickness
is much thicker than San Juan. He felt because of that, Cook Inlet
has a huge potential and added it would make economics quite
different if 50 trillion cubic feet of reserves in Cook Inlet was
shown instead of 2.8 trillion cubic feet.
Number 303
MR. SMITH said there was $150,000 available for the program and
they were able to drill a 1,245 foot deep core hole. They tried to
collect samples from the Northwest Coal Project in deadfall
syncline but every time they tried to drill below permafrost, they
lost their drill string. Therefore, no samples were received from
the project. He stated compiling all of the coal and coalbed
methane information for the entire state resulted in the report in
committee members folders.
MR. SMITH stated the well was drilled approximately two miles west
of Wasilla and was drilled in an area that previously was
identified as having high potential for coalbed methane. He
presented a slide showing the rig used for drilling and several
slides on the process. He noted they had nearly 100 percent
recovery. He explained the good coals were put in canisters to
determine how much gas they contained. There is about one foot of
core in each canister and over the two or three month time period,
the gas was taken out and they got about eight liters of gas. He
said they logged the hole and then plugged the hole with benseal,
along with a 20 foot cap of cement.
Number 405
MR. SMITH reviewed what was determined during the project. He said
almost 1,000 feet of core was received. They encountered 37 feet
of coal with the thickest being six and one-half feet. He showed
the results which indicated increasing gas with depth, which is
good. He stated the second column of numbers on the slide are the
numbers to be focused on--the 63 to 245--the increasing gas with
depth which is in cubic feet per ton and is calculated on a dry ash
free basis--all of the ash and moisture is out of the coal--and is
calculated out to cubic feet per ton. Therefore, there is a
standardization. He stressed the bottom number of 245 is good for
that depth and rank of coal. In the Black Warrior and San Juan
basins, the cubic feet per ton gas ranges from approximately 300 to
500, which is at deeper depths.
MR. SMITH stated they have multiple targets--shallow increasing gas
with increasing depth. He said in the reservoir plate, which may
be around 3,000 feet, that could translate to 300-400 cubic feet
per ton of gas. He displayed a slide showing a well which got up
to 245 cubic feet per ton. He pointed out there are fractures and
cleating in the coals.
Number 435
MR. SMITH stated what they do know is the gas content, the rank and
composition of the coals, how much gas the coals have, etc. He
said what they do not know is the absolute permeability. He noted
the only way to determine that is through production testing. He
felt the private industry would take the well one more step and
actually test some things in the future.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representative NICHOLIA
had joined the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ALAN AUSTERMAN wondered when the gas is first
formed, if that is a one-time situation or does the coal continue
to form gas.
MR. SMITH responded the coal is putting out gas continuously. As
the coal is shallow buried, it gives off small amounts of biogenic
gas. He said the coal they drilled was a combination of about 50
percent biogenic gas and 50 percent thermogenic gas, which is
typical of coalbed gas. He noted the coal produces biogenic gas
until it gets buried to a certain depth with temperature and
pressure. Then when the coal reaches bituminous rank, it produces
a lot more gas. He stated the coals in the Cook Inlet are still
giving off gas. He told committee members most gas production in
the Cook Inlet is actually coalbed gas migrated into sandstone.
The gas is being produced out of the sandstones there.
Number 481
REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN asked if the disposal of water is an
insurmountable problem.
MR. SMITH stated the disposal of water could be a problem. He
referred the committee to a sheet in their folders called "Issues
Concerning Coalbed Methane Development". He said one of the issues
concerns the market. In order to break into the market in Cook
Inlet, the coalbed methane has to be proven a reliable and
productive source. There has to be proof than an X number of cubic
feet can continually be produced. In the rural areas, however,
there may be a totally different economic situation. A small well
which would be uneconomic anywhere else, could provide a bush
community with the gas they need, converting diesel generators over
to gas.
MR. SMITH told committee members another issue is cost. He said a
drawback for major oil companies is the cost. In Cook Inlet a
500,000 cubic feet a day well is going to look good but for a major
oil company, the size will not cover its overhead. He felt it is
going to take small companies and small operators to produce this
resource.
Number 525
MR. SMITH said the third issue is regulations. He noted there was
somewhat of a conflict on regulations when he drilled the well near
Wasilla. He explained they permitted as a coal exploration, which
on the outside it looked like the regulations fit this type of
operation closer than the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation
Commission's (AOGCC) regulations. Currently, the commission is
looking very closely at changing their regulations to accommodate
small-scale, low-cost operations. The commission is changing their
permitting process and bonding requirements.
MR. SMITH stated the next problem with regulations is the water
disposal. The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
requires a $1 million bond for exploration drilling. However, no
bond is required for gas production wells. He said these coalbed
wells will be gas production wells but it is somewhat up in the air
how those wells will be classified by AOGCC. He noted the first
wells will really be exploratory wells but in order to determine
whether or not they are going to produce gas, there is a need to
put them on production. He stated the potential for environmental
damage is not out of the ground but is off the storage on the rig.
He felt there are a number of circumstances which indicate these
wells do not need the huge bonding required for an oil well.
MR. SMITH pointed out that another issue is the disposal of
drilling wastes and produced water. He said on his well, they used
all non-toxic drilling muds and put the cuttings into a reserve
pit. At the end of the operation, the reserve pit was dried out
and grated over. He stated there were no environmental problems
involved. He explained that current regulations make disposal of
drilling wastes and any produced water very difficult. If the
water is fairly fresh and can be treated and discharged in the
surface, such as the Susitna River or some large surface stream,
there will be no damage. He stressed water disposal will be
expensive if it has to be injected back into the formation. He
added that the quality of water will not be known until someone
starts producing the water.
Number 589
MR. SMITH noted there is much talk about the royalties charged and
getting leases available. He said new statutes are being written
for royalty reduction, which he felt coalbed would fall under. He
stated they are looking at new ways to get more leases out but have
the 035 best interest finding and the coastal zone management plan
to contend with. He thought maybe some of the large block licenses
may work for the coalbed methane program. He noted there may be
ways to streamline the best interest finding.
MR. SMITH stated he did not feel there would an ownership problem.
Agencies recognize that coalbed gas is going to fall under oil and
gas regulations. Coalbed methane is a movable hydrocarbon, whereas
coal should fall under mining. The ownership on state land can be
taken care of by putting a couple of stipulations in the lease
forms like Colorado does. He noted that Colorado is the only
state that addressed ownership in their leasing. Other states have
very few problems in regard to state land--it is administered under
their oil and gas regulations. The biggest problems and lawsuits
coming in are on private land or where there is a combination of
private and federal lands. He noted there are some portions of
Alaska lands which also have federal coal rights left and that
could be a potential problem.
Number 635
DAVE JOHNSTON, CHAIRMAN, AOGCC, testified via teleconference and
stated the commission is very interested in the development of
coalbed methane. He noted in terms of regulations of this
activity, the AOGCC does have some interest. Primarily, that
interest would be in looking at the disposal of wastes generated,
protection of fresh water, and the protection of the correlative
rights of adjacent property owners. Coalbed methane is a movable
resource, which involves a situation where adjacent property owners
can have their resources moved out from under them by development
of a well on their neighbor's property. Because of that, there is
a great need to protect the interests of those adjacent property
owners. He stressed that is the basic principle of why
conservation commissions were created originally. Generally, the
commission's thoughts tend to go to the more deeper resource
associated with oil and gas.
MR. JOHNSTON recalled that Mr. Smith had pointed out a few problems
with the regulations as currently written, which were tailored more
for the deeper resource as found in the North Slope and Cook Inlet
areas. He stated AOGCC is engaged in a significant rewrite of its
regulations and one aspect of that rewrite will be to take a look
at the need of those people who are drilling to very shallow
horizons, which coalbed methane would fall under. AOGCC will be
tailoring changes to accommodate different casings, different
completion techniques, etc. AOGCC will also be altering the
requirements of bonding, probably allowing a provision that would
allow an operator to come before the commission and submit
information that would justify a lowering of the bond amount, which
then could be approved by the commission.
MR. JOHNSTON said the AOGCC stands ready and willing to work with
the operator and other individuals to ensure this resource is
extracted. He is particularly excited about the possibility of a
viable resource for Native communities.
Number 681
DAVE LAPPI, LAPP RESOURCES, testified via teleconference and stated
Mr. Smith did an excellent job overviewing the concerns which
private industry might have in regard to coalbed methane
development in Alaska. He said his company is currently involved
in a study for the Department of Community and Regional Affairs,
examining the possibility of supplying gas to Native villages, both
from conventional sandstone reservoirs and from coalbed methane
reservoirs. He felt there is going to be a good opportunity in the
state to get at least a few of the villages off of diesel fuel and
on to a cleaner and more environmentally acceptable fuel.
MR. LAPPI said he also has concerns about access to state lands.
Many of the places coalbed methane might be found may not be
available in a timely manner under the current state leasing laws.
Explorations licensing, which was passed last year, may be
(indiscernible) and may cause some of the concerns about access to
state lands. He stated one of his thoughts on access to state
lands, as far as the leasing laws go, is it might be appropriate to
do a best interest finding on all state lands and then allow the
leasing to take place where those best interest findings determine
it is appropriate. He stressed this would involve a major effort
by the state to identify those areas, out of all the state lands,
which are appropriate for leasing.
TAPE 95-28, SIDE B
Number 000
MR. LAPPI said all the state lands would not necessarily have to be
on a five year leasing schedule. He noted it might be possible to
allow applicants to apply for leases in areas that are not on the
current schedule.
MR. LAPPI stressed regulatory change is another area of concern.
He felt AOGCC is taking the steps to address those concerns to
allow low cost drilling. He said bonding is another concern. If
someone is trying to drill a well with a low cost structure to
supply a village with 100 families, for example, they cannot afford
to put up a $1 million bond and hundreds of thousands dollars for
other things. He stressed the cost of the bonds, in some cases,
would exceed the costs of drilling the well. With only 100
customers, they cannot afford to carry those costs in an economic
fashion. He felt bonding requirement changes would allow coalbed
methane development to proceed, especially in rural areas.
MR. LAPPI stated water disposal is another concern, especially in
areas close to big rivers. For example, there are many communities
along the Yukon River that have good potential for coalbed methane.
He noted the Yukon River has a huge flow--about 100,000 cubic feet
per second average and about 1 million cubic feet per second at
flood stage. He felt there should not be any problem, on a
scientific basis, allowing a few hundred or a few thousand gallons
of water a day to be mixed in. He stressed it would not have any
impact on water quality in the Yukon. He said those kinds of
concerns could be addressed, especially if there is an ability to
see through the politics and get back to the science.
Number 060
MR. LAPPI stated low cost pipelines are another area the state may
want to look at. He noted the Canadians are laying coil tubing
pipelines on the surface in tundra areas and non-populated areas.
They are using those pipelines as either temporary or in some
cases, permanent pipelines to transport gas as far away as 50-60
miles--from the source to the market. He felt the state of Alaska
could probably do a similar thing.
MR. LAPPI said the final issue he wished to discuss is a royalty
reduction. He felt, especially in the rural areas where expensive
diesel fuel purchased in the lower 48 and shipped up is being
displaced, it might be appropriate to completely eliminate the
royalties on gas used in the villages in rural Alaska. He pointed
out the state would probably come out ahead if it could encourage
the use of a local indigenous resource like coalbed methane,
instead of importing the expensive diesel fuel.
Number 095
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if there is any rough estimate on the
percentage of villages in the bush community that could be served
by coalbed methane.
MR. LAPPI responded at least one-half of the villages in the bush
could be served by coalbed methane or conventional gas. He stated
it is not going to be easy to locate the gas reserves because many
of these basins have not received any deep exploratory port hole
yet. He felt it would be a long-term project to get this to
happen. He recalled a climatological study hole that was drilled
in Fort Yukon last summer by the U.S. Geological Study (USGS). He
said the USGS actually finished the drilling of the well because
they found a gassy coal at about the 1,200 foot depth and that coal
was at least 29 feet thick. He noted the well is in downtown Fort
Yukon. This is the first time anyone has intercepted a coal in
that basin, because no one has done much deep drilling. He
stressed if some exploratory holes are dug, the resource will be
found there.
Number 129
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN wondered how coalbed methane is stored. He
asked if coalbed methane has to be compressed or is it under
natural pressure.
MR. LAPPI replied coalbed methane wells usually produce gas at a
very low pressure. He added that water production is needed to get
the gas to flow. He said in the case of a shallow natural gas
well, there may be several hundred to 1,000 PSI pressure depending
on the depth of the sandstone. In most cases, there would be a
need to provide a compression facility at the surface, near the
well, to compress the gas and then get it into a pipeline if it is
going to be transported any distance. In the case of a village,
there may not be a need to compress the gas much to distribute it.
REPRESENTATIVE OGAN asked if coalbed methane can be stored in
tanks.
MR. LAPPI said yes. He stated compressed natural gas (CNG) is used
as an energy source in some parts of the world. From an economic
point of view, CNG suffers from the fact that the energy density is
very low. He explained a better alternative for transporting
natural gas is to liquefy it and turn it into liquified natural gas
(LNG) which has to be stored at very low temperatures. However,
technology is improving and he felt LNG will be used in the state
of Alaska to transport and store natural gas in the future.
Number 180
PAUL CRAIG, PRESIDENT, Z-ENERGY, testified via teleconference and
stated his company is an independent gas and oil exploration
production company attempting to get off the ground as an
independent operating in Alaska. He said his company's first
project is a north Beluga gas well in the Beluga gas fields. One
of the barriers he faced was the $1 million bond required for oil
spill contingency, as well as the oil contingency plan. He
encouraged the legislature to review the issue and recognize the
AOGCC has the technical expertise in place to make a determination
whether or not there is a risk for oil spills in exploratory wells.
He noted in the case of coalbed methane, they would be drilling
into a known gas reservoir with no heavy hydrocarbons in the
vicinity. He said it becomes an onerous burden for the small
operator. He stressed it is important that science and common
sense prevail.
MR. CRAIG noted a similar natural gas well in Sacramento Valley in
California--bonding requirements never exceed $50,000 for a natural
gas well and bonding averages about $25,000. He wondered if
changes in the $1 million bonding requirement for natural gas wells
would require legislative action or if it could be revised through
regulation under the current statute.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted for the record that Representative BARNES
had joined the committee.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN thanked everyone on teleconference and Mr. Smith
for his presentation.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled a statement was made that there might be
a possibility of discharging treated water into the Yukon and he
reminded the committee there is an adage which has become very
popular--"dilution is no solution to pollution." He recalled there
was concern about who might have regulation of coalbed methane
wells and he felt AOGCC was the proper entity. He pointed out that
sand, limestone, fractured shale, etc., are all varieties of
reservoirs which produce gas and it seemed logical that coal could
be a reservoir and produce gas. He felt operations should be under
the oversight of AOGCC.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Mr. Smith had given an example of
a piece of coal which actually could hold more gas in place, per
unit volume, than a sandstone reservoir. He told committee members
that porosity in itself is not the answer. For example, if a large
building had many rooms in it and no windows and doors, it would
have a tremendous porosity but no permeability. If one or two
doors are opened, it has very low permeability but still has the
porosity. He said gas has a tremendous viable potential,
especially for the remote villages but probably not in an
exportable commodity because of that problem.
MR. SMITH stated six or seven years ago, Colorado was in the
situation that Alaska is in now. Colorado rewrote some regulations
to do coalbed methane wells and to cover their leasing. Now, one-
third of their production is from coalbed methane and that state
only has a very small percentage of the San Juan Basin.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the sponsor of HB 195 could not be
present. Therefore, the committee would go on to hear HB 170.
HRES - 03/06/95
Number 322
HB 170 INTENSIVE MANAGEMENT OF GAME
REPRESENTATIVE PETE KELLY, PRIME SPONSOR, stated since the bill,
itself, was discussed a week ago, he would not overview the bill
again. He said there are people on teleconference who would like
to make comments and also answer questions.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a MOTION to ADOPT CSHB 170(RES), version
G dated March 3, 1995.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there were any objections. Hearing
none, the MOTION PASSED.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN noted there was a hand out which compares version
C to version G of HB 170.
REPRESENTATIVE KELLY stated there is no substantive changes in
version G, only a tightening up of the language.
Number 389
SANDRA ARNOLD, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA WILDLIFE ALLIANCE, testified
via teleconference. She stated she has spoken with many biologists
who all say the same thing about HB 170 and that is, it is
biologically unachievable unless there is an intention to have a
predator level at zero. She stressed many Alaskans value the fact
that Alaska is different--it still does have abundant predators and
spends 6 percent more dollars each year on dealing with wildlife in
non-consumptive activities. She noted she keeps hearing that the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) needs to stop managing
people and start managing the resource. She felt people management
is and has always been an inherent part of wildlife management.
She pointed out urban hunters should be more than willing to take
a year off from moose hunting or travel a little farther to where
the caribou and moose are abundant, rather than scream for more
predator control.
MS. ARNOLD wondered why no one has talked about the cost of HB 170.
Intensive management of game is very costly. She said if what the
bill asks for is possible, it would be quite expensive to achieve.
The sustained yield principle is complex and cannot be taken care
of in a two page bill. She noted it is easy to understand
concepts--a balanced budget is an easy to understand concept but it
is very difficult to obtain. She stressed it takes time, research,
and a non-stop effort to get wildlife to do what is desired and HB
170 will not change that fact. She told committee members to let
HB 170 die and the existing SB 77 be negated.
MS. ARNOLD felt the state should start over and try to come up with
a coherent, state-wide predator/prey management policy--one that
has broad-based support and where a diverse group of people are
invited to the table to discuss. She said this issue will go on
and on and there will be lawsuits, controversies, etc. In the
meantime, the resource will suffer. She stated her organization
would love to settle the issue and move on. They would gladly come
to the table in good faith to try and work out a compromise. She
stressed HB 170 and SB 77 are only going to perpetuate the strife
over predator control in Alaska and continue to divide Alaskans.
Number 433
MICHAEL TETREAU, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and stated
public lands should not be used for single species management. He
said management which favors one or two species also favors equally
certain interest groups and not the general public. Public lands
should be managed to maintain natural eco-system processes. He
noted single species management practiced in the past has resulted
in unexpected and undesirable results. He stated the bill also
references the restoration of the abundance or productivity of
identified big game prey populations. He stressed there is a big
difference between abundance and productivity. He felt
productivity should be used, not abundance.
MR. TETREAU stated HB 170 also eliminates the possibility of
placing restrictions on methods or means of taking game, access to
game, or human harvest of game. He said the people cannot be
ignored and any game management should take a holistic approach.
He noted throughout the bill, the term big game prey is used as
opposed to large ungulates or moose and caribou. He felt the true
intent of the bill is nothing more than predator control.
Number 458
JIM RAMSDELL, SEWARD, testified via teleconference and stated when
he heard of HB 170 he wondered how anyone could bring up such
legislation when Alaska is still reeling from the recent outcry
over wolf control efforts. He realized the bill was just another
effort by lawmakers to control Alaska's wild in an effort to boost
(indiscernible). He said he is a wildlife lover and deals with
many of the tourists coming to Alaska to view the wildlife and feel
the state's wild spirit. He stated he could not believe the
legislature, by their actions, would not care what tourists and
outsiders say, while standing with outstretched hands, taking
millions and millions of tourist dollars.
MR. RAMSDELL stated there is much more to the issue than just
predation including weather, food supply, bull/cow ratios, and
hunting pressure. He said in view of past legislation, freezers
full of moose, caribou, and deer can do much more damage than good.
He recommended HB 170 be killed.
Number 479
MARK LUTTRELL, PRESIDENT, EASTERN KENAI PENINSULA ENVIRONMENTAL
ACTION ASSOCIATION, testified via teleconference and stated if HB
170 is not taken seriously, this bill is just a nuisance bill and
gets in the way of real wildlife management. He felt the sponsors
are guilty of what environmentalists are often accused of--filing
lawsuits to allegedly delay or try to up the costs of a particular
agency action. He said if HB 170 is taken seriously and there is
some wildlife management (indiscernible) in this bill, he felt it
is still a bad bill and the conclusion is that wolves are bad, they
should be killed and moose are good, we need them. He stressed
there is much more involved in the way people interact with
wildlife and there is much more to the ecology of predator/prey
relationships. He recommended HB 170 be killed.
Number 510
OLIVER BURRIS, FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated
he is a retired wildlife biologist. He stressed he is not a legal
wordsmith on the construction of the bill but expressed his major
concern is the neglected management on non-management of the
state's wildlife resources, primarily moose and caribou. He
pointed out that most Interior moose populations are only one-tenth
to one-half of former levels. He noted 90-95 percent of the calves
are killed before they reach 16 months of age, where they could
contribute to the harvest by humans. He added that 75 percent are
killed before their first winter, meaning a high winter loss is not
being looked at in most of the situations. Moose harvest,
typically, is only about three to five percent of the annual calf
crop of these moose and caribou populations.
MR. BURRIS said no where does anyone come close to harvesting 30-50
percent of the harvestable surplus which is obtainable through any
reasonably active management program and does not require the zero
elimination of predators. Active management can support high
densities of predators. Areas have been seen where active
management programs were in place and predator density was restored
to the number per square mile per area density much higher than
what it was before the active management program started. He
stressed the idea there is a need to eliminate predators to have an
active management program is false.
Number 537
SAM HARBO, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT & STATISTICS,
FAIRBANKS, testified via teleconference and stated there are
compelling environmental arguments for greater utilization of
northern ungulates. He said more and more ecologists are
recognizing that greater dependence and greater utilization on
local resources is the environmental way to go. Environmentalists
arguing against greater utilization on local resources,
particularly renewable resources such as moose, caribou and sheep,
are on the wrong side of the environmental issue. He pointed out
they have left their value system get in the way of sound
environmental reasoning.
MR. HARBO stated active management, which he believes the bill
should be called, over prey populations undoubtedly is going to
require greater effort and hence, costs on the part of the
department. He said it does not take much effort by the department
to manage a moose population if only about one and one-half percent
of the population is being taken, which is restricted to bulls
only. He felt passive management does not cost much. Active
management is going to cost more. He stressed the environmental
advantages of utilizing local resources and much greater returns at
the local level warrant, in very selected areas, more management
than what is occurring currently.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN recalled that Mr. Burris had mentioned a low
number between one and one-half and three percent of human harvest.
He wondered if Mr. Burris was talking about the entire herd. He
noted that Mr. Burris had talked about a 75 percent mortality of
newborns that were not harvested. He asked if the three percent
involve those who mature later or of the entire herd.
MR. BURRIS responded the figures he used involve looking at the
number of offspring being born into the population. He said the
harvest by humans normally equals...he was not talking about the
harvest of calves but the harvest of some adults in the
population...to between three and five percent of those calves
which are being born into the population each year.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified there would be 75 percent killed by
other causes and three percent of a number of calves born would
ultimately be harvested.
MR. BURRIS said that is correct. He stated when the overall
figures are looked at on the number of calves being born, and those
who survived until at least 16 months of age are looked at, it will
be found that only five to ten percent of those calves have
survived to 16-18 months of age.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified if 100 calves are born, 75 of those
will die before they have their first winter and by the time those
calves reach 18 months, there will only be five or ten calves.
MR. BURRIS said that is correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that of those five or ten calves, three
are harvested.
MR. BURRIS responded the equivalent of three are harvested.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified between 30-60 percent of the
harvestable calves are currently being harvested.
MR. BURRIS said that was correct and added after all other
mortality has taken place.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN stated the sponsor is saying, therefore, let us
get into that 75 percent and reduce that percent so the numbers
reaching 18 months will go up.
MR. BURRIS stated that is correct.
CO-CHAIRMAN GREEN announced HB 170 will be rescheduled at a later
date.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before the House Resources
Committee, Co-Chairman Green adjourned the meeting at 9:30 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|