Legislature(1999 - 2000)
04/03/2000 01:45 PM 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
April 3, 2000
1:45 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Bill Hudson, Co-Chair
Representative John Cowdery, Vice Chair
Representative John Harris
Representative Carl Morgan
Representative Ramona Barnes
Representative Jim Whitaker
Representative Reggie Joule
Representative Mary Kapsner
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 426
"An Act relating to transfers of public land or grants or
conveyances of interest in public land among the Alaska Railroad
Corporation, the Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, and the Department of Natural Resources to relocate
or widen the Seward Highway, to relocate railroad facilities, and
to relocate adjacent utility facilities; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 426(TRA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 39(RES)
Encouraging the United States Congress to pass S. 2214, a bill
opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
to responsible exploration, development, and production of its
oil and gas resources.
- MOVED CSSJR 39(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 44
Relating to mandates and other conditions imposed on the states
by the federal government.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 426
SHORT TITLE: TRANSFER OF RAILROAD LAND: CHUGACH PARK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/28/00 2336 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/28/00 2336 (H) TRA, RES, FIN
2/28/00 2336 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DNR, DOT)
2/28/00 2336 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
3/23/00 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
3/23/00 (H) Moved CSHB 426(TRA) Out of Committee
3/23/00 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
3/24/00 2684 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) NT 2DP 4NR
3/24/00 2684 (H) DP: KOHRING, HUDSON; NR: COWDERY,
3/24/00 2684 (H) KEMPLEN, MASEK, HALCRO
3/24/00 2684 (H) 2 ZERO FISCAL NOTES (DNR, DOT)
2/28/00
3/24/00 2685 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
4/03/00 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: SJR 39
SHORT TITLE: ENCOURAGING CONGRESS TO OPEN ANWR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/16/00 2626 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/16/00 2626 (S) RES
3/22/00 (S) RES AT 3:00 PM BUTROVICH 205
3/22/00 (S) Moved CS(Res) Out of Committee
3/23/00 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
3/23/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
3/23/00 2707 (S) RES RPT CS 4DP 1NR SAME TITLE
3/23/00 2708 (S) DP: HALFORD, TAYLOR, GREEN, PETE
KELLY;
3/23/00 2708 (S) NR: LINCOLN
3/23/00 2708 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (S.RES)
3/24/00 2724 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 03/24/00
3/24/00 2727 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
3/24/00 2727 (S) RES CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
3/24/00 2727 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
3/24/00 2727 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSJR 39(RES)
3/24/00 2728 (S) PASSED Y16 N1 E3
3/24/00 2730 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
3/27/00 2707 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
3/27/00 2707 (H) RES
3/27/00 2707 (H) REFERRED TO RESOURCES
4/03/00 (H) RES AT 1:30 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison
Department of Transportation & Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 426.
AL MEINERS, Superintendent
Chugach State Park
Division of Parks & Outdoor Recreation
Department of Natural Resources
HC52 P.O. Box 8999
Indian, Alaska 99540-9605
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 426.
PAT CARTER, Legislative Aide
for Senator Drue Pearce
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 111
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced CSSJR 39(RES).
JIM SYKES
Oil Watch Alaska
P.O. Box 101553
Anchorage, Alaska 99510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 39.
CARLY ALLEN
Alaska Youth for Environmental Action (AYEA)
8439 Jupiter
Anchorage, Alaska [Postal Code not provided.]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 39.
SARAH CALLAGHAN, Staff
for the Sierra Club, Anchorage
3409 Doris Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 39.
POLLY CAW
12540 Toilsome Hill Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 39.
MEKAELA MAHONEY, a Kodiak high school student
1717 Mission Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 39.
SAMANTHA MARLAR, a Kodiak high school student
3582 Spruce Cape Road
Kodiak, Alaska 99615
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 39.
LARRY PAQUIN
966 Goldmine Tr.
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the need for long-term vision
versus a short-term fix.
PHIL WILDFANG
299 Hawk Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Urged the committee to reject SJR 39.
DAVE LACEY
PO Box 81765
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
POSITION STATEMENT: Indicated that the way to go is
conservation.
RANDY VIRGIN
3131 West 100th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on SJR 39.
NANCY MICHAELSON
HC5 Box 6916F
Palmer, Alaska 99645
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to SJR 39.
SUE SCHRADER
Alaska Conservation Voters
PO Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Noted that here testimony is included in the
bill packet.
PAM LaBOLLE, President
Alaska Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Announced that the Alaska Chamber of
Commerce strongly supports SJR 39.
ANDY KELLER (ph)
[Address not provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed SJR 39.
ROGER HERRERA (ph)
[Address not provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Alaska should support the
opening of the Coastal plain to responsible development.
TAD OWENS, Project Coordinator
Resource Development Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that RDC strongly supports SJR 39
and urges its passage.
KAREN COWERT, General Manager
Alaska Support Industry
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Expressed the Alaska Support Industry's
support of SJR 39.
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist
CSX Lines
[Address not provided]
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SJR 39.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-29, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR HUDSON called the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting to order at 1:45 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Hudson, Cowdery, Harris, Morgan,
Barnes and Joule. Representatives Kapsner and Whitaker arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 426 - TRANSFER OF RAILROAD LAND: CHUGACH PARK
CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the first order of business was
HOUSE BILL NO. 426, "An Act relating to transfers of public land
or grants or conveyances of interest in public land among the
Alaska Railroad Corporation, the Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, and the Department of Natural Resources to
relocate or widen the Seward Highway, to relocate railroad
facilities, and to relocate adjacent utility facilities; and
providing for an effective date."
Number 0130
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison, Department of Transportation
& Public Facilities (DOT/PF), stated that HB 426 was instigated
by DOT/PF with the concurrence from the railroad. The reason for
their inclusion in the bill is that some of department's road
realignments along the corridor will require some track changes.
He explained that basically what the bill does is give the
Department of Natural Resources (DNR) the authority to negotiate
directly with DOT/PF for land exchanges, to allow DOT/PF to
exchange corridors or move the corridor if necessary along the
Seward Highway between Potter Station and Girdwood, which is
within the Chugach State Park. They have five projects scheduled
over the next four years within that corridor, and HB 426 would
allow them to deal directly with DNR and the railroad and not
require them to get legislative approval for each individual
parcel transfer. The way the statutes were established for DNR
for Chugach State Park was that any land transfers would have to
come before the legislature. He does not think that the
legislature originally anticipated that they would have so many
small land transfers that are associated with the transportation
corridors.
AL MEINERS, Superintendent, Chugach State Park, Division of Parks
& Outdoor Recreation, Department of Natural Resources, stated via
teleconference from Anchorage that they support HB 426.
[James Cantor, Assistant Attorney General, Transportation
Section, Department of Law, said via teleconference from
Anchorage that he was available to answer any questions.]
Number 0604
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSHB 426(TRA) from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
note; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection,
CSHB 426(TRA) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
SJR 39 - ENCOURAGING CONGRESS TO OPEN ANWR
CO-CHAIR HUDSON announced that the next order of business was CS
for Senate Joint Resolution No. 39(RES), encouraging the United
States Congress to pass S. 2214, a bill opening the coastal plain
of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to responsible
exploration, development, and production of its oil and gas
resources.
PAT CARTER, Legislative Aide for Senator Drue Pearce, Alaska
State Legislature, stated that since 1954, United States oil
production has dropped 17 percent, while consumption has risen
approximately 14 percent. America's energy industry has also
been damaged during this same time frame. Jobs in the energy
sector have declined from 405,000 in 1990 to 293,000 - a 28
percent drop over the last 10 years. A further sign of decline
is that exploration rigs searching for oil have fallen from 657
in 1990 to 153 in February of 2000 - a 77 percent decline over
the last 10 years. As of last February, America is importing
approximately 56 percent of the daily oil consumption; 44 percent
of that comes from countries that are participants and members of
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The
dramatic decline in domestic oil production and resulting
dependence on foreign oil is directly attributable to America's
failure to develop a long-term energy plan. To be successful,
this policy needs not only to address the promotion of
alternative technologies and fuels but also to recognize that for
the foreseeable future Americans are going to be dependent on
petroleum and natural gas to power the nation's industry,
transportation systems and economy.
MR. CARTER further stated that industry and government experts
recognize that the Coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR) is the single most promising unexplored region in
the United States for a major oil and gas discovery. Therefore,
SJR 39 supports the congressional efforts for developing a long-
term energy policy for America, which includes opening access to
promising areas like ANWR in an effort to increase the domestic
oil and gas production. Only then will America be loosened from
the grip of foreign oil producing nations.
Number 0864
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said that recently, in listening to a
newscast where the President was encouraging the United States
Congress to pass his "energy bill," she noticed that one of
things he was proposing, in addition to alternative fuels, was to
give tax incentives and tax breaks to oil producers. She asked,
"Are you aware of anywhere in the United States -- or have you
ever heard any discussion to where you could take as small an
area that we're discussing here in SJR 39 and get the amount of
oil out of it that you possibly could, as it relates to the
United States as a whole?"
MR. CARTER responded that technology has made a lot of
advancements since the early 1980s. In the early 1980s, the
estimated impact to the Coastal plain for full-blown oil
development of ANWR was about 12,500 acres. Today, the entire
development is estimated at about 2,000 acres, which amounts to
roughly three square miles. He noted that absolutely no place in
America looks as promising in terms of the vast quantities that
they think are in ANWR and also for the relatively low impact as
far as square mileage.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES commented that it seems a bit disingenuous
that the President, who is "always for protecting the
environment," would propose to leave ANWR untouched, while he
would have to develop offshore and many other places around the
United States that would require much larger areas.
MR. CARTER agreed and said what is even more disturbing is that
the environmental community, which proposes to look at the
environment on a worldwide basis, would want to further restrict
oil and gas development in a country that has by far the most
restrictive oil and gas development conservation measures and
environmental protection policies in place.
JIM SYKES, Oil Watch Alaska, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He said that Oil Watch Alaska keeps tabs on the oil
industry in the state. He indicated that he is in opposition to
CSSJR 39(RES). He referred to the "WHEREAS" on page 2, line 13,
where it states, "replacing sport utility vehicles with cars that
use alternative fuels or are more energy-efficient is a goal to
be applauded and encouraged, but will happen only in the future."
He pointed out that the only way such vehicles will be replaced
is if the price of oil remains high. It happened following the
1973 oil crisis and it happened again in 1978. It was not the
government's intervention; it was indeed consumers who wanted
fuel efficient cars.
MR. SYKES referred to the "WHEREAS" on page 2, line 18, which
speaks to reducing dependence on foreign oil and looking towards
domestic resources. He thinks that it is one of the greatest
oversights in the resolution, he informed members, because
approximately 3 percent of the world's oil is located within the
borders of the United States. Alaska contributes between one-
quarter and one-fifth of that 3 percent. If one considers that
the United States uses about one-third of the world's oil and
only has approximately 3 percent of it, it does not take much to
realize that the United States cannot produce its way to oil
self-sufficiency. In fact, the reverse is true: the sooner the
United States depletes its oil resources, [the sooner] its
defense will be at risk and oil will have to be imported at a
much higher price, because other Middle East producers will have
a chokehold on the supply.
MR. SYKES further stated that the tenth "WHEREAS" on page 2, line
23, speaks about the best possibility for discovery of another
oil and gas discovery the size of that at Prudhoe Bay. He noted
that the latest United States Geological Survey (USGS) report
talks about ten small possible opportunities, not one large oil
field.
MR. SYKES next expressed concern with the "WHEREAS" on page 2,
line 25, where it states, "in 1998, a three-year study by the
United States Geological Survey estimated the recoverable oil
potential of the coastal plain to be as high as 16,000,000,000
barrels of oil, which could replace Saudi oil imports to the
United States for 30 years." He noted that there is only a 5
percent chance of finding 16,000,000,000 barrels of oil. He said
the "WHEREAS" on page 3, line 3, regarding coastal plain
development, providing hundreds of thousands of jobs and creating
billions of dollars is another pie-in-the-sky number like the
16,000,000,000 barrels. In terms of taking care of the Porcupine
Caribou herd, he suggested that members please consult any of the
Gwich'in people, because they do not think that it can be taken
care of. The development that might occur will occur across the
entire 1002 area, and it requires a network of pipelines and
roads; therefore, even though the footprints themselves are
individually small, the network is required. Mr. Sykes
concluded:
I kind of think of this as a lemonade stand. If the
state's lemonade stand is between the Colville and
Canning Rivers, we get maybe a 25 cent profit out of
that. If we refer our customers to the west to NPR-A
[National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska], which is the next
logical area for development, they might give us a cut
because of the referral and give us 10 cents on a
dollar for a glass of lemonade, and the same thing on
the east. So, the main question is, Why should we, as
the State of Alaska, refer the oil developers to the
areas where we don't make much money and where we
really might need that oil at a later date as a savings
account, which we shouldn't be taking out of right now?
... I cannot in good conscience support it under these
circumstances. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this
is not a good deal and some of these numbers really do
need to be changed if you want this resolution to carry
any weight, wherever you choose to send it.
Number 1604
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE wondered why Mr. Sykes pointed out that the
Gwich'in people are in opposition but failed to mention the
people who live right in the refuge that support it.
MR. SYKES responded that the oil industry has been very
successful in dividing Alaskans so that they can gain access to
oil land. In places where there is concern with onshore
development, the Gwich'in oppose it, because they feel that their
dependence on the caribou is going to be harmed. At the same
time, there is a lot of opposition with Northstar, which is an
offshore development, because the Inupiat people are more
concerned with sea mammal subsistence resources. He does not see
it as necessarily a conflict, although there may be people within
the refuge that are Inupiat that support it. It has to be seen
in the larger context of what the oil industry is trying to do;
if they get their feet offshore, they will move onshore, and if
they get their feet onshore, they will try to move offshore. The
division of the peoples is a very artificial one, because they
would ordinarily be together on the issue and work it out among
themselves.
Number 1735
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE agreed that there is a lot of concern with
the offshore development and the sea mammals. In addition, there
is concern with the conditions of the ice and, especially, with
what they have seen in more recent years with the Exxon Valdez.
He pointed out that one of the major reasons why the people of
the North Slope are in support of opening ANWR is because it is
onshore development. If anything goes wrong onshore, it can be
curtailed. He thinks that they have had many years of experience
in Prudhoe Bay and other parts of the North Slope, and they can
take that experience and the technology and leave a very small
footprint. In one law in 1971, the people of that community and
that area were granted, under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act, the opportunity to choose and development land so they could
become a little more self-sufficient in the ways of the world
through their corporations. Yet another law prohibits them from
doing anything. He thinks it is very ironic.
Number 1867
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES said:
I find it ironic that we live in the greatest country
on the face of the earth, with the most protected
environment. ... We're constantly developing technology
to clean up and protect the environment. And all of
the studies clearly show that at Prudhoe Bay the size
of the footprint, as said by Representative Joule, is
now down to a very, very small area, and that certainly
there is nobody on that North Slope that is going to
allow the environment to be degraded there.
I find it extremely interesting that he pointed to the
caribou, and if Mr. Sykes has ever been to Prudhoe Bay,
as I have, in the summertime you see all these caribou
under the oil line rubbing their backs, getting the
mosquitos and bugs off of them. They like that line.
They're not running away from it, and they're not being
afraid of it. They're having ... babies, and they feel
very protected. In addition to that, when the
permitting of Northstar was taking place and all the
lawsuits were being thrown out of the court, there was
some concern by people from Barrow - I believe, the
whalers - that there would be some effect on the
whales.
And they did work with BP [British Petroleum] to make
sure that the pipes that were sunk into the water were
sunk in such a way that they were comfortable ... that
it would not cause environmental degradation. And when
he talks about the oil industry is trying to do thus-
and-so, I believe that that is not a correct way to put
it, because 70 plus percent of Alaskans, it has been
shown, support the development of ANWR - I believe it
is 77 percent. They have supported development at
Prudhoe Bay. You would think that people would know
that, in fact, if this many Alaskans supported that,
you wouldn't just refer to the oil companies as wanting
this, because the very last blood of this state depends
on oil and gas development and other resource
extraction, and that's one of the problems that we're
going to face in the very near future with our economy.
And I know Mr. Sykes. I wish him well in his
endeavors. I just happen to disagree with him.
Number 2062
CARLY ALLEN, Alaska Youth for Environmental Action (AYEA), said:
We are vehemently opposed to this resolution. First of
all, people keep talking about how this is for Alaska's
future, and this is for the real Alaskans, and the
Alaskans support it. I have lived here my entire life,
and I plan to raise my kids here. And I do not want to
see Alaska turned into another Lower 48. I don't want
it stripped of its natural resources. The other issues
involved are the talk about the Native people of the
area. The people who live in the actual refuge, their
main subsistence is offshore. People worry about their
own; they take care of their own thing, and that is why
these people support onshore drilling, ... because it
doesn't directly affect them, in their minds, at least.
In answer to the Gwich'in people, their entire
subsistence is based onshore. They have a huge
interest in keeping this area from development. To ...
disrupt this area will profoundly affect the
environment. I don't think we can in good conscience
go and do all this stuff without knowing exactly what
we're doing. I think it needs further study, at least.
I think part of the reason this is coming forward again
now is because of the high oil prices. By the time -
if it passes - by the time it develops, if it's
developed, and oil starts coming out of there, it will
be five to ten years from now. It's people right now
having stuff affect them and [wanting] a quick fix.
And there is only about six months' worth of oil in
there. That's one of the figures that has come up.
There is only enough to run the United States for six
months. That's not worth it. We're disrupting a whole
ecosystem without really knowing what exactly the
effects will be.
In answer to Alaskans wanting this, only 50.3 percent
of Alaskans polled in the latest poll want this; 41
percent of those polled said, "No way." And this is
only a small study, 500 randomly selected Alaskans.
So, I think at least this needs further discussion and
further study, and we don't think it should happen at
all.
Number 2554
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES pointed out that the latest poll that she
had seen was a huge sample, and 77 percent of Alaskans were in
support of opening ANWR. She asked Ms. Allen if she has ever
been to Prudhoe Bay.
MS. ALLEN responded that she has never been to Prudhoe Bay, and
one reason that she is opposed to SJR 39 is because she wants to
see it before it is opened to oil drilling.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES reiterated that this is a very small area
in Prudhoe Bay. She pointed out that she has been there on
several occasions, and it supplies a great deal of America's oil.
She has seen the caribou, the fox and the birds nesting, and it
does not look as if they are too disturbed. She added, "I think
it is very unfortunate that people tell you things that you have
to rely upon, because you are not able to see for yourself."
MS. ALLEN replied that there have been huge die-offs in one of
the main caribou herds.
CO-CHAIR HUDSON asked Ms. Allen if she could get a copy of where
that is referenced.
MS. ALLEN replied, "I believe I could."
Number 2397
SARAH CALLAGHAN, Staff for the Sierra Club, Anchorage, indicated
that the Sierra Club is in opposition to any drilling on the ANWR
Coastal plain. She explained that ANWR consists of about 1.5
million acres of land and only represents 5 percent of Alaska's
entire coastal area in the Arctic. She said that 95 percent of
Alaska's Arctic, both onshore and offshore, is either available
for oil and gas drilling today or available for leasing and
exploration in the future. Thus ANWR is currently the only 5
percent that is off-limits to oil drilling.
MS. CALLAGHAN indicated the Sierra Club is looking forward, in
the future, to a balance between oil drilling and wilderness in
Alaska's Arctic. They really do feel that ANWR represents a
unique area. It is known as the biological heart of a much
larger ecosystem. Millions of migratory birds travel to the
Coastal plain in the summertime. Of course, the 130,000-member
Porcupine Caribou herd calves on the Coastal plain each year.
This is an area that is very important, not only to people that
use the area for hunting and guided hiking trips but also for the
wildlife.
MS. CALLAGHAN further stated that polling has shown a consistent
split [in opinion]: whether it was 50/50 or 40/60, Alaskans are
really divided over the question of whether to drill for oil in
Alaska's only Arctic refuge. Recent polling shows that the
majority of Alaskan women and rural residents support protecting
ANWR. Even in Fairbanks, a recent poll showed that 51 percent of
the citizens of Fairbanks wanted to protect ANWR. It is not cut-
and-dried; many Alaskans feel that this is a really important
area.
MS. CALLAGHAN stressed that no amount of careful planning is
going to completely eliminate oil spills or risks to the
environment when drilling for oil. Today analysis shows that in
Prudhoe Bay there is about 1,000 square miles of roads,
pipelines, drilling pads and airports. This is concentrated in a
small area and what you get is a "web of development," and it
does affect caribou migration and other wildlife populations.
She reported that a recent analysis shows 5,000 separate oil
spills since the Exxon Valdez oil spill 11 years ago. These are
self-reported incidents that the industry has told them about.
Also, Alaska's own biologists from the University of Alaska have
determined that the Central Arctic herd in Prudhoe Bay is
experiencing a recent decline in population, lower birth rates,
increased stress, and a decline in overall productivity.
Essentially, the Arctic herd is split into two groups - one to
the east of the pipeline and one to the west. The area west of
the pipeline, where most of the development is taking place, is
where they are seeing some major declines and reduction of
productivity for those caribou herds.
Number 2650
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE asked whether the caribou decline is for a
certainty attributable to what is happening on the North Slope.
He further asked whether it is because the population is doing so
well that the herd [size] is "exploding" and therefore creating
competition and stress in the herd's range.
MS. CALLAGHAN replied that oil was first discovered in the late
1960s in Prudhoe Bay, and all of the caribou herds were
experiencing a natural increase in size. The Central Arctic herd
actually tripled in size and is up to about 30,000 animals today.
Biologists believe that the reason the herd grew so much over
that 15-year period is that there were mild winters. Since oil
has been discovered, biologists have been doing a lot of studies
throughout the years, and it is only recently that they have been
able to make the connection between oil drilling and the slow
decline in productivity in the caribou herds. It has only been
in the last few years that they have actually drawn a clear line
between oil drilling and negative effects on caribou herds on the
North Slope.
Number 2752
REPRESENTATIVE KAPSNER stated that she visited the North Slope
project, and what impressed her was how environmentally sensitive
BP and ARCO are being. When they stop a car just for a few
minutes, they put plastic underneath so that no exhaust drips on
the ground. If exhaust does drip on the ground, it is classified
as an oil spill, which is why there have been as many as 5,000
oil spills self-reported. She noted that there was a Greenpeace
tent there, too, and the oil drillers were wondering what
[Greenpeace] was doing with its waste. She said she found it
ironic.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Ms. Callaghan about the 95 percent
that she had referred to in her testimony and wondered if it has
the potential for oil production.
MS. CALLAGHAN replied that the other 95 percent is only covering
the North Slope, which includes the Arctic Refuge Coastal plain,
the state lands, NPR-A and the offshore areas. She replied,
"Yes, we do expect that there is oil to be had in that 95
percent."
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if Ms. Callaghan had scientific
proof of that.
MS. CALLAGHAN replied that they would have to talk with BP and
ARCO about that, but since ARCO is currently drilling in the NPR-
A, it is likely that there is oil out there. She indicated that
there is quite a bit of oil still to be had in the state lands,
and by focusing the infrastructure where they already have the
roads, they can contain that development and still make quite a
bit of money.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY wondered if Ms. Callaghan would be opposed
to oil development in the other 95 percent.
MS. CALLAGHAN replied that each area is special in its own way.
The Sierra Club does not support a blanket endorsement of
developing. There needs to be careful consideration. For
instance, they don't support areawide lease sales that the state
does.
TAPE 00-29, SIDE B
POLLY CAW said she is opposing SJR 39 because ANWR is a national
refuge that should be preserved for all Americans. She said, "In
effect, with SJR 39 we're destroying the very meaning of the word
'refuge.'" A refuge by definition is a haven, which to her means
a haven for the diversity of wildlife that exists there. She
related how one of her students, after looking up the definition
of refuge, asked how [ANWR] could be considered a refuge when it
is exploited with development. Ms. Caw said she believes this is
a dangerous lesson being taught to the next generation.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER asked if Ms. Caw is aware that the
coastal plain was specifically set aside by Congress for future
oil exploration.
MS. CAW answered, "But I am also aware that the word 'refuge' and
designating an area for the wildlife and for the people seems to
contradict terms to me."
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER said he wouldn't question the
contradiction, because that is part of what is trying to be dealt
with, in that there is a "clash of cultures." He related his
belief that development is integral to the State of Alaska. He
recognized that [others believe] development of this type is a
thing of the past and perhaps, not the future. "We" are
wrestling with those two concepts, he concluded.
Number 2854
MEKAELA MAHONEY, a Kodiak high school student, said that she
opposed SJR 39. She expressed concern that by opening up this
last 5 percent of the Arctic coastal plain and (indisc.) to oil
drilling, there will be no chance to change our minds and put the
oil back in the land. She hopes that much consideration would be
given before a final decision is reached. Ms. Mahoney pointed
out that the Arctic is a vision of Alaska; Alaska evokes images
of the wilderness, open space and the wonderful animals. Without
the aforementioned qualities, many people would not live in
Alaska or visit the state. Furthermore, SJR 39 does not
necessarily solve our high oil prices or dependence on foreign
oil. She noted that it could take up to 10 years to prepare the
land for oil drilling.
Number 2769
SAMANTHA MARLAR, a Kodiak high school student, said that she
strongly opposes SJR 39. If SJR 39 passes, it will have
detrimental effects on Alaska's environment as well as Alaska's
image as the Last Frontier. This image is important to the
tourism industry and economy as well as to Alaska's residents.
She said, "Besides destroying the birthing grounds of the 129,000
Porcupine Caribou herd, this resolution would also destroy the
U.S.'s last threshold of pristine wilderness." People come to
Alaska with the expectation that Alaska is a great frontier that
is free from the unfavorable characteristics of the other states,
she said. She informed the committee that her parents are a good
example: they drove the so-called Alcan on their honeymoon, in
search of a better life than that found in the noisy and polluted
place of their birth, the San Francisco Bay area. In conclusion,
Ms. Marlar restated that opening up this last 5 percent of the
North Slope would forever shatter Alaska's image as the Last
Great Frontier.
Number 2681
LARRY PAQUIN acknowledged that "we" all agree that the current
high price of gasoline is causing a hardship on consumers.
However, rushing to open ANWR is a quick fix to a temporary
problem. He agreed with Mr. Sykes that opening ANWR to drilling
will merely prolong the time [until] "we" develop a comprehensive
national energy policy. Mr. Paquin suggested that building fuel-
efficient cars and properly inflating tires could save as much
oil as would come from ANWR. He believes very little has been
done, except in times of high gasoline prices, to conserve
energy.
MR. PAQUIN recalled the statement that the vast majority of
people favor opening ANWR to drilling. In the Fairbanks area, he
said, only 51 percent favor opening ANWR to drilling, which is
hardly a vast majority. He echoed earlier comments regarding the
notion that the people who depend on the offshore areas for
resources, the people around Kaktovik, are not as concerned about
the land. However, the Gwichi'in people are because their
resources depend on the land itself. He asked, "Must we repeat
the buffalo-slaughter mentality that was already developed ...
and apply this to the last 5 percent of land available on the
Arctic national coastal plain to exploitation?" He said that
this is not really an energy crisis, and, if it were, there would
be better arguments regarding opening ANWR. Mr. Paquin expressed
the need for long-term vision versus a short-term fix.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS mentioned that he did not know where people
were receiving the information that 51 percent of those in
Fairbanks favor opening ANWR to drilling. He surmised that the
percentage would increase rapidly if those in Fairbanks were
asked, "Would you rather see the development of ANWR either go
ahead or not go ahead, or the University of Alaska's funding be
decreased because of the lack of revenue that the state has as
the decline in oil revenue continues?" As stated earlier,
Representative Harris believes that much of Alaska's economy is
dependent upon its resource development. If the state continues
to decline in resource development, then he predicts state
spending will decline as well.
MR. PAQUIN pointed out that there are also bills "in the works"
that would transfer close to 130,000 acres to the university;
therefore, part of that problem would be solved. He informed the
committee that he believes [the 51 percent] is from an Ivan Moore
(ph) poll in Fairbanks.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said that does not answer his question. If
the state does not develop its resources and the university loses
its revenue, he asked if Mr. Paquin believes that number [the 51
percent] would change.
MR. PAQUIN said he believes that there are other sources of
funding besides oil. He pointed out that the polls depend upon
how [the question] is framed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE commented that the people from the coast are
not as concerned with the land as they are with the sea. He
himself lives on the coast and has been to the community, and he
knows that much of their food comes from the ocean. However,
much of their food source also comes from the land and the rivers
in the area. Therefore, he believes it is inaccurate to say that
these people are not as concerned with what happens to the land.
Number 2429
PHIL WILDFANG told members that he wanted to attest to Ms.
Callaghan's statement that some Fairbanks citizens are interested
in preserving ANWR. As a 57-year-old, he said that he is not
proud of the track record his generation has in regard to
preserving wilderness areas, conserving natural resources and so
forth. Although ANWR only constitutes 5 percent of the North
Slope, this area is a national treasure. Therefore, it is time
to turn the thermostats down, pump up our tires and put
technology to work in order to develop some alternative energy
resources. He suggested diversifying Alaska's economy in order
to look toward something other than extraction technology to
support the economy. Mr. Wildfang respectfully urged the
committee to reject SJR 39 and to send the nation the message
that "we" want to preserve this national treasure.
Number 2326
DAVE LACEY informed the committee that he has worked in rural
development for almost 20 years with a village on the Yukon
Flats. He has been told by Gwich'in elders that future
generations [are important] and the caribou [should be]
comfortable in the calving grounds. Mr. Lacey said, "It's not
necessarily the size of the footprint, but it's the disruption
that we have to deal with." He related his belief that it is
good to follow what the elders say due to their view of the
larger picture. He recognized that the oil revenues fund the
university, but what will happen to the university funding when
the oil runs out? This problem should be [grappled] with now,
instead of pushing it off into the future. Mr. Lacey indicated
that the way to go is conservation, which makes sense when
keeping future generations in mind.
Number 2185
RANDY VIRGIN said he was speaking on his own behalf today. He
stated, "The U.S. will never drill its way into energy
independence." He said 3 percent of the world's reserves are
within the United States, which consumes one-third of the world's
oil. Therefore, opening ANWR is not going to end [the country's
dependence] on foreign oil. He informed the committee that the
USGS estimates the mean average to be 3.2 billion barrels of oil
under the coastal plain, which could run the country for six
months. Even with the highest estimate, it would be 16 billion
barrels of oil, which could run this country for two-and-a-half
years.
MR. VIRGIN said that he could not look his friend [who lives in
this area] in the eye and tell her that a six months' supply of
oil is more important than her culture's need for that land to
remain such that they can subsist off the caribou herd. He
pointed out that the Gwich'in nation opposes opening up ANWR and
has stated that in resolutions. He further pointed out that when
this refuge was created, the coastal plain was not set aside for
oil development. Rather, the language actually refers to a
"special study area". Furthermore, this refuge is currently
barred by Congress from development, and that is the reason there
is a bill that would open the refuge pending at the federal
level.
REPRESENTATIVE WHITAKER commented that he is aware of the
language in the congressional Act, and it [the refuge] was set
aside for possible exploration. In regard to the probability of
providing oil for the U.S., it is one manner in which this issue
may be viewed. However, there is another way of looking at this:
the probable 1.5 billion to 3 billion barrels of oil from ANWR,
which would provide a minimum of 10 years of operation of the
Alaska pipeline, which is very meaningful to the state.
Furthermore, if there is a 5 percent possibility that there are
16 billion barrels of oil in ANWR, that would provide 48 years of
operation for the Alaska pipeline. He stressed the need to look
at this from both contexts; however, he said, Alaskan legislators
have to consider the Alaskan perspective the most important.
MR. VIRGIN said that he appreciated the Alaskan perspective,
which is his first concern. In the interest of a local
perspective, Mr. Virgin told members he prefers to defer to the
Gwich'in people. He does not believe that this [opening ANWR]
could be done without sacrificing the environment. He concluded,
"Ten years ago, I'm sure that we were convinced that the
technology was so advanced that we couldn't possibly mess up and
yet the Exxon Valdez oil spill proved us wrong. ... Eleven
years now, and we still don't have a full fleet of double-hulled
tankers."
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented that things are moving in that
direction. He recalled his 20 years at sea, in which he watched
oil being transported in the most terrible shipping situations.
However, he said Alaska can take some sense of pride since almost
every new ship coming online is double-hulled, with a redundant
control system and improvements.
Number 1792
NANCY MICHAELSON testified in opposition to SJR 39, saying she
does not agree with entering the Arctic coastal plain and
drilling for oil and gas. She does not agree with the
interruption it would cause to the wildlife and the Gwich'in.
Most of all, she does not believe that this is something that all
Alaskans agree on. Ms. Michaelson referred to page 2, line 13,
which read: "WHEREAS replacing sport utility vehicles with cars
that use alternative fuels or are more energy-efficient is a goal
to be applauded and encouraged, but will happen only in the
future ...." She suggested perhaps deleting that section because
voters had voted for legislators to "do good now." Furthermore,
she doesn't believe that opening ANWR would happen for many
years, and the state should be moving towards these things now.
SUE SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Voters (ACV), noted that the
bill packet should include a copy of her testimony. She also
offered to supply the committee with a copy of the results of the
aforementioned Ivan Moore poll that ACV did January 10-20, 2000.
Number 1577
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska Chamber of Commerce, announced
that the Alaska Chamber of Commerce strongly supports SJR 39
because it means jobs for Alaskans, economic well-being for the
state, revenue for schools, support for social services and
revenue for Alaska's cities and towns. Furthermore, this would
mean oil for America and reducing dependence on foreign oil. Ms.
LaBolle said that she has been to Prudhoe Bay and ANWR, and she
has seen how environmentally sensitive the oil field production
is at these locations. It is clean, she said. She noted that
she has seen the wildlife, which are not affected or bothered to
any visible degree on the North Slope. The amount of land being
discussed here is approximately the same amount as that involved
in the Anchorage International Airport. She commented, "It is
not that significant, and it will be environmentally sensitively
done."
MS. LaBOLLE stated that most people testifying today were not
even here 25 or 30 years ago and thus do not recognize that the
same argument is being used. At that time, a worst-case scenario
was predicted; however, there has been an extremely good record
of production, which has meant much to Alaska. Alaska has an
infrastructure that for which there was no hope before the
production of oil. So much has been gained from oil production,
and now it is time to look at ANWR. Ms. LaBolle said, "We're all
Alaskans. We all want a bright and healthy future for our
children and our children's children, and we are confident that
development ANWR exploration will give us that bright, healthy
future."
Number 1404
ANDY KELLER (ph) spoke in opposition to SJR 39, saying he would
like to submit his testimony and supporting documents at a later
date. Although speaking on his own behalf, he informed the
committee that he is a graduate student of the University of
Alaska - Fairbanks and a former employee of the U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service. Mr. Keller noted that he had conducted
biologically studies on the coastal plain of ANWR in order to
assess possible impacts to biological resources - should oil
drilling take place - and to obtain a baseline study. From his
personal experience, he believes that industrial impacts have the
potential to significantly erode wildlife values and destroy the
areas' wilderness character. He emphasized that claims that
opening ANWR would only impact 2,000 acres of land drastically
understate the impacts of hundreds of miles of roads spread
across the tundra, with dozens of drilling pads, and with dust
and noise from trucks and airplanes. For example, in the 1002
report it is estimated that 40 percent of the Porcupine Caribou
herd would be drastically impacted by the infrastructure in
Prudhoe Bay. He feels, as others have expressed, that a 10
percent protection for the coastline of Arctic Alaska is a small
amount compared to the 90 percent that is currently not
protected.
MR. KELLER commented that he is not convinced, either way, by the
polling data. In terms of Alaska, he believes that the polling
numbers are closer. He informed the committee that he is
conducting some preliminary surveys and launching a national
poll, at the University of Alaska, that would explore this issue
and tie rising gas prices to the desire to open ANWR to oil
drilling. Mr. Keller stated that over 70 percent of the American
public supports protecting this area, which is well documented.
There is a bill, with approximately 166 co-sponsors, in Congress
that would protect this area as a wilderness. Furthermore, there
are U.S. Senators who will filibuster any drilling bills, should
any make it to the U.S. Senate.
MR. KELLER informed the committee that he is currently in the
process of reviewing the legislature's expenditures on Arctic
Power, the lobby effort for drilling proponents. He reported
that thus far, the 1997 request he has seen is in the amount of
$775,000; therefore, he suspects that it is in the millions. Mr.
Keller wondered whether, with the grim prospects of passing that
as a drilling bill, the money could be better spent to assist the
university and to address other needs in the state.
Number 1143
ROGER HERRERA (ph), an Anchorage resident testifying via
teleconference from Washington, D.C., explained that he first
came to Alaska in 1960 as a geologist working on the North Slope,
and thus he knows that area very well. He noted that he is
presently in Washington, D.C., in order to persuade Congress to
open up the coastal plain to responsible development, which he
believes that Alaska should support. He stressed that wildlife
and oil development can exist at the same time, which has been
adequately proven at Prudhoe Bay. In regard to the earlier
information about the reduction of caribou in Prudhoe Bay area,
it was not entirely complete. He clarified that in the three
years beyond the years quoted, the number of caribou in the
western part of the Central Arctic herd doubled in 1995-1997;
however, the caribou that do not use the oil field decreased by
half. He commented, "These things are sort of the quirks of
nature and have very little to do with the oil field." He noted
that he was quoting from a document titled "Journal of Wildlife
Research."
MR. HERRERA stated that the recent interest in looking at the
coastal plain as a partial solution to [the state's problems] is
really precipitated by OPEC's control of the world price of oil.
Basically, OPEC has control of the price because it has control
of the supply. He said, "The coastal plain represents a source
of future supply. We had a price range of $10 going up to $30
because OPEC curtailed production by less than 1.5 million
barrels of oil a day." If the USGS is correct in its reserve
estimates, then this could be expected to come from the coastal
plain.
MR. HERRERA concluded, "If one looks at the careful analysis of
the world oil production situation, which is now appearing with
increasing frequency in the scientific press, one finds that the
consensus of people that know about these things is strongly
indicating that the world production of oil will peak as soon as
2006 or 2007; and thereafter it will decline." Therefore, he
said, this is a bigger problem than some theoretical concerns
about wildlife on the coastal plain. It will be reviewed on a
national [basis]. In order to view this responsibly, one must
review whether the USGS figures and subsequent production are
correct. Without it, "we" will be forced into alternative energy
sources when "we" are ill-prepared and cannot afford them.
Number 0871
TAD OWENS, Project Coordinator, Resource Development Council
(RDC), testified via teleconference from Anchorage, urging
passage of SJR 39. He explained that RDC represents individuals
and companies from all of Alaska's basic industries. Its mission
is "to grow Alaska's economy through the responsible development
of our natural resources." Members of RDC have long supported
the opening of ANWR to responsible oil and gas exploration and
development. Mr. Owens said, "We believe advances in technology
allow for significant resource development with minimal
environmental impact. ... The oil and gas industry on the North
Slope has demonstrated that it can operate under the most extreme
conditions with the highest respect and care for the land and its
natural resources."
Number 0808
KAREN COWERT, General Manager, Alaska Support Industry, testified
via teleconference from Anchorage in support of SJR 39. As
mentioned by Mr. Herrera (ph), she said, "our" commitment to the
environment is not an either/or situation. She informed the
committee that about two years ago, "we" brought several folks
from the Washington, D.C., Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)
office to Alaska. After a visit to Prudhoe Bay and several other
fields, Peter Robinson, EPA Deputy Director, said Alaska knows
how to do it right in regard to the pristine and well-run fields
in Alaska.
MS. COWERT stressed the need for America to have a strong
economy. She pointed out that the U.S. would save $14 billion
per year in oil imports if the U.S. used its own oil. She
emphasized her desire to see that $14 billion in oil in America
so that jobs can be created. Developing ANWR would probably
create 250,000 to 735,000 jobs. She said, "We see federal
revenues that would be enhanced by billions of dollars ... and
that's not even to say what the Alaska economy would get." She
pointed out that currently, Alaskans are looking at a $2,000-a-
year permanent fund dividend, which all Alaskans enjoy. She
emphasized that the state would also benefit from state revenues.
She indicated the need to focus on the important things: jobs,
America's strong economy and a strong environmental situation.
Number 0500
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist, CSX Lines, testified in support of SJR 39.
He pointed out that Alaska uses a lot of fuel in its ships to
bring cargo to Alaska. He said, "Between us and (indisc.), we
bring 80 percent of the consumer goods into Alaska, and we need
fuel for those ships." In regard to the testimony that ANWR
would only provide a six months' supply, he pointed out that the
same approach to Prudhoe Bay would have resulted in a two-and-a-
half years' supply. He stated, "Actually, we supply 20 percent
of the nation's production, but almost 60 percent of that is
foreign."
MR. FUHS pointed out that resources developed overseas are
developed at a much lower environmental standard than "we" would,
and thus he did not see how that is saving the planet. He
indicated the need to take some pride in the work "we" have done,
since "we" have taken control of our emissions. Mr. Fuhs said,
"The fact is that the North Slope is de facto wilderness. ... One
good environmental factor of oil development is that once it's
done, if you have proper reclamation, it'll be gone forever; it
is a temporary use of the land." Furthermore, the lease
provisions put in place ensure that the land will be properly
reclaimed. Therefore, he believes "we" have earned the right to
do this, and he hopes that the legislature not only passes SJR 39
but also gets involved to [open ANWR]. Mr. Fuhs commented, "It's
a little bit scary to me that some of the people that we saw here
today that are obviously getting some of their information from
our school system are not being given the whole story."
Number 0203
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON announced that public testimony was concluded.
He thanked all of the witnesses.
REPRESENTATIVE JOULE corrected his earlier statement in regard to
the number of animals in the Central Arctic caribou herd, saying
Ms. Callaghan's number was closer. He noted that ADF&G is not
sure why the herd is fluctuating; they think it may be [because
of] some stress on the habitat. Representative Joule commented
that the debate today was good and appropriate in a system of
checks and balances.
CO-CHAIRMAN HUDSON pointed out that everything that goes before
the committee is part of the record to be transmitted to every
member. The committee's job is to listen to all sides.
TAPE 00-30, SIDE A
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES read from Ms. Schrader's prepared statement
contained in the bill packet:
While the Native residents of Kaktovik, whose
subsistence activities are centered around marine
mammals rather than caribou, may support opening the
refuge, the Gwich'in people of Alaska and Canada
consider the coastal plain as sacred ground. For an
estimated 20,000 years, their traditional subsistence
lifestyle has depended heavily upon the caribou of the
Porcupine herd that use the coastal plain as their
birthing grounds.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES indicated that it offers up a great
dichotomy, because last week the issue of wolves was before the
committee, and the same people opposed the conservation efforts
against the wolves that are eating moose in McGrath and taking
away the subsistence lifestyle. Those same people here are using
the same basic argument as it relates to the Gwich'in people that
they are using against the people in McGrath, she suggested.
REPRESENTATIVE BARNES made a motion to move CSSJR 39(RES) from
committee with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal
note; she asked for unanimous consent. There being no objection,
CSSJR 39(RES) moved from the House Resources Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
CO-CHAIR HUDSON adjourned the House Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 3:25 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|