02/07/2001 01:13 PM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
February 7, 2001
1:13 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Beverly Masek, Co-Chair
Representative Drew Scalzi, Co-Chair
Representative Joe Green
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative Lesil McGuire
Representative Mary Kapsner
Representative Beth Kerttula
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Hugh Fate, Vice Chair
Representative Gary Stevens
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1
Relating to Avalanche Awareness Month.
- MOVED HCS CSSCR 1(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7
Urging the United States Congress to pass legislation to open
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
Alaska, to oil and gas exploration, development, and production.
- MOVED CSHJR 7(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SCR 1
SHORT TITLE:AVALANCHE AWARENESS MONTH
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0086 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0086 (S) RES
01/22/01 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
01/22/01 (S) Moved Out of Committee
MINUTE(RES)
01/22/01 (S) MINUTE(RES)
01/23/01 0145 (S) RES RPT 5DP
01/23/01 0145 (S) DP: TORGERSON, TAYLOR,
PEARCE, LINCOLN,
01/23/01 0145 (S) ELTON
01/23/01 0145 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.RES)
01/24/01 (S) RLS AT 10:45 AM FAHRENKAMP
203
01/24/01 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
01/24/01 0170 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR W/CS 1/25
SAME TITLE
01/25/01 0170 (S) FN1: ZERO(S.RES)
01/25/01 0175 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
01/25/01 0175 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
01/25/01 0175 (S) PASSED Y20 N- CSSCR 1(RLS)
01/25/01 0177 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
01/26/01 0166 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/26/01 0166 (H) RES
02/07/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
BILL: HJR 7
SHORT TITLE:ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)MASEK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0089 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0089 (H) O&G, RES
01/30/01 (H) O&G AT 10:00 AM CAPITOL 124
01/30/01 (H) Moved Out of Committee
01/30/01 (H) MINUTE(O&G)
01/31/01 0209 (H) O&G RPT 7DP
01/31/01 0210 (H) DP: FATE, DYSON, KOHRING,
CHENAULT,
01/31/01 0210 (H) JOULE, GUESS, OGAN
01/31/01 0210 (H) FN1: ZERO (H.O&G)
02/07/01 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 124
WITNESS REGISTER
JERRY BURNETT, Staff
to Senator Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 125
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of sponsor of SCR 1.
EDDIE GRASSER, Staff
to Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 128
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke on behalf of sponsor of HJR 7.
SUE SCHRADER
Alaska Conservation Alliance
Alaska Conservation Voters
PO Box 22151
Juneau, Alaska 99802
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HJR 7.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-9, SIDE A
Number 0001
CO-CHAIR BEVERLY MASEK called the House Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:13 p.m.
SCR 1-AVALANCHE AWARENESS MONTH
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the first order of business would
be CS FOR SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION NO. 1(RLS), Relating to
Avalanche Awareness Month.
Number 0173
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt the
proposed House committee substitute (CS) labeled 22-LS0335\J,
Utermohle, 1/31/01, as the work draft. There being no
objection, HCS CSSCR 1, version J, was before the committee.
JERRY BURNETT, Staff to Senator Green, read Senator Green's
sponsor statement as follows:
Alaska is avalanche country. Each year Alaskans lose
their lives as a result of avalanches. One of the
worst years was 1999, when 14 people were killed by
avalanches in Alaska. While often little or nothing
can be done to prevent the occurrence of an avalanche,
much can be done to prevent the loss of life from
avalanches.
Senate Concurrent Resolution 1 would proclaim November
2001 as "Avalanche Awareness Month." This
proclamation will raise public awareness of the
hazards associated with avalanches, and the
opportunities to participate in avalanche safety
training at the beginning of the winter recreation
season. It is hoped that public participation in
avalanche safety programs will be increased and that
this increased participation will result in saved
lives during the winter.
The need for this resolution was brought to our
attention by the Backcountry Avalanche Awareness
Response Team (BAART).
MR. BURNETT noted that [the sponsor] has reviewed the proposed
HCS. He said that he understood the HCS to simply expand the
number of agencies and people to whom the resolution is being
sent.
Number 0365
CO-CHAIR MASEK requested that Mr. Burnett review the changes
that the HCS encompasses.
MR. BURNETT reiterated that the HCS simply expands the number of
agencies and people to whom the resolution is being sent. The
HCS is now being sent to "the mayors, chiefs of police, and fire
chiefs of the Municipality of Anchorage, Fairbanks North Star
Borough, Haines Borough, City and Borough of Juneau, Ketchikan
Gateway Borough, Matanuska-Susitna Borough, City and
Borough of Sitka, City of Cordova, City of Fairbanks, City of
Haines, City of Palmer, City of Petersburg, City of Seward, City
of Skagway, City of Valdez, and City of Wasilla; to the
operators of the ski areas at Eaglecrest, Alyeska, Alpenglow,
Hilltop, Cleary Summit, and Cordova Ski Hill; and to legislative
communication offices for statewide distribution."
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if there is any other [awareness
issue] that would fall under the month of November.
MR. BURNETT replied yes. He specified that last November there
were some [issues] that were recognized.
Number 0500
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked the sponsor's staff for
including Bill Glude, Southeast Alaska Avalanche Center, as they
play an important part in this.
CO-CHAIR MASEK remarked that this is a needed resolution. She
noted that recently two men lost their lives in Eureka [due to
an avalanche].
Number 0580
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved to report HCS CSSCR 1 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
zero fiscal note. There being no objections, HCS CSSCR 1(RES)
was reported from the House Resources Standing Committee.
HJR 7-ENDORSING ANWR LEASING
CO-CHAIR MASEK announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 7, Urging the United States
Congress to pass legislation to open the coastal plain of the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), Alaska, to oil and gas
exploration, development, and production.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE moved that the committee adopt the
proposed committee substitute (CS) labeled 22-LS0341\C,
Chenoweth, 2/1/01. There being no objections the CS was
adopted.
Number 0690
EDDIE GRASSER, Staff to Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska
State Legislature, spoke on behalf of Representative Masek, the
sponsor of HJR 7. He pointed out that HJR 7 is not new
legislation. He said the bill was introduced several times in
past legislative sessions and "has passed each time by
overwhelming majority." Mr. Grasser made the following
statement:
Opening the coastal plain to oil and gas exploration
and development is supported by a vast majority of
Alaskans, including those who live closest to the
coastal plain. One of the leading arguments against
opening ANWR has been the supposed impact upon the
Porcupine Caribou herd, and more specifically to the
calving grounds. Records would indicate that perhaps
this concern is overstated. Caribou - if you check
with the Department of Fish and Game [ADF&G] you'll
find that caribou traditionally move around in their
migration patterns, including where they calve. It
just so happens that I have 24 years of professional
experience in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, on
the north side, and I can attest that I've been eye-
witness to the caribou herds shifting their grounds on
several occasions. ... many years they would migrate
to the south in their southern migration back towards
Canada, through the Aichilik Valley. On some
occasions they used the Hulahula [River], on other
occasions they used the Jago [River], and sometimes
they used the Kongakut [River], or the Canning
[River]. So they don't always follow the same
pattern.
We also know that production at Prudhoe Bay is in
decline, and ANWR may present our best opportunity to
locate and recover sizeable reserves of oil. It is in
our financial best interest, as a state, to provide
opportunities to extend oil production and use the
existing infrastructure as the oil pipeline that's in
place now.
With the election of President Bush and the continued
controlled Congress by Republicans, Alaska probably
has its best chance right now to persuade the Federal
Government and the American public to open ANWR.
Also, it doesn't hurt our cause that California and
other states are experiencing energy problems in the
near future. We should take advantage of that
opportunity.
MR. GRASSER referred to the letters and resolutions in support
of HJR 7, located in the bill packet. He said the letters were
sent by various economic groups and organizations, including
Arctic Power.
Number 0885
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked for comments on Amendment [1], which was
offered by Representative Kerttula. Amendment 1 is as follows:
Page 3, line 11, following "and be it":
Insert a new paragraph to read:
FURTHER RESOLVED that the Alaska State
Legislature opposes any unilateral reduction in
royalty revenue from exploration and development of
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge and any attempt to coerce that State of Alaska
into accepting less than the 90 percent of the oil,
gas, and mineral royalties from the federal land in
Alaska that was promised to the state at statehood;
and be it
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment [1] "for
purposes of discussion".
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK asked Mr. Grasser to explain the effects,
if any, of the proposed amendment on HJR 7.
MR. GRASSER said:
The proposed amendment to ... HJR 7 would include
language that sends a message to Congress and the
President that Alaska would like to retain the 90:10
split that was promised to it in statehood, in the
statehood contract. Since this is a resolution, I'm
not sure how much weight that would carry with other
members of Congress. I'm sure that our members in the
congressional delegation would continue to support
such a[n] allocation. I don't see any reason why it
shouldn't be included in the resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA thanked Mr. Grasser for "doing her work
for her." She said she appreciated the opportunity to offer the
amendment.
Number 1040
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a motion to adopt Amendment 1. There
being no objections, Amendment 1 was adopted into HJR 7.
CO-CHAIR MASEK opened up the floor to public testimony.
Number 1094
SUE SCHRADER, Alaska Conservation Alliance, Alaska Conservation
Voters (ACA/ACV), testified in opposition to HJR 7. She made
reference to the packet of information she supplied to the House
Resources Standing Committee [which is included in the bill
packet]. Ms. Schrader said she represents 44 member
organizations and 35,000 registered Alaskan voters. She stated
that although ACA/ACV is also concerned with the energy crisis
in California, they do not believe that opening ANWR to
exploration is the answer. She mentioned her responses to
specific "whereas" clauses of HJR 7, which are included in ACV's
position paper, dated February 7, 2001.
MS. SCHRADER gave a brief overview of her written testimony.
She said "it is disingenuous to lead the Americans to believe
that by opening the [Arctic National] Wildlife Refuge, we're
going to drill ourselves to oil independence." She stated that
the figures available on the amount of oil in ANWR are a
"geologic guess" and "the subject of a lot of wishful
overestimating." She said "the most recent USGS [United States
Geological Survey] assessment is that there's roughly 3 to 6
billion barrels of economically recoverable oil under the
[Arctic National Wildlife] Refuge, and this will be less than
one year's supply.
MS. SCHRADER stated that, in her opinion, the most important
figure she could provide to the House Resources Standing
Committee is that "the United States contains about 5 percent of
the population, and yet we use 25 percent of the world's energy
supply." She quoted a sentence from the February 2, 2001,
[Juneau Empire Online Opinion] article [by Hank Lentfer], which
reads: "We need that oil right now, like an addict needs
another hit of heroin." Ms. Schrader added, "that oil's not
going anywhere, let's leave it there until we really need it."
MS. SCHRADER said that another big issue is the impact of oil
drilling on the caribou. She acknowledged Mr. Grasser's 24
years of experience, but said she hoped the House Resources
Standing Committee would give consideration to the opinions of
experienced scientists, whose observations are included in her
written testimony. She referred to a letter signed by over 200
scientists and to an overview of the caribou situation written
by Ken Whitten, "[an ADF&G] wildlife biologist who spent 20
years observing the caribou movement on the North Slope."
MS. SCHRADER continued by stating:
Indeed we heard in [the House Special Committee on Oil
& Gas] from Cam Toohey [Executive Director, Arctic
Power] that the Central Arctic herd is up - that's the
herd that is around Prudhoe. And, indeed, if you read
that article in [the] Anchorage Daily News you will
see that the biologists who have studied that herd are
unable to relate the increase in the herd to oil
development. And as much as Arctic Power might like
us to believe that there are no impacts, I don't think
any of the scientists are capable of saying that there
are no impacts, and indeed, there are many studies
that show that there are.
Number 1366
MS. SCHRADER passed around a map of Arctic Alaska and Northwest
Canada to show the area of the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
(ARCP). She said that when the caribou were displaced from
their calving area in Prudhoe Bay, they had room to move south,
whereas if they are displaced from their calving area in the
ARCP, they will not be able to migrate south, due to the fact
that the ARCP is only 15 to 40 miles wide, north to south. Ms.
Schrader said:
The scientists are suggesting that it's very likely
that the female caribou will be pushed out of their
normal calving area, southward. That's going to put
them right into the foothills of the ... Brooks Range.
In the foothills there are two big problems. The
quality of forage for these calving females is much
poorer, and the predation by wolves, bears, and
mosquitoes is much higher.
So ... geographically we don't have the room for
error. In other words, we can say, "Oh it's fine for
the caribou to be pushed south around Prudhoe, but
it's going to be far more difficult for these animals
to maintain some calf ... viability in the coastal
plain because it is so narrow."
Well, you will also hear that the Porcupine caribou
herd can calve in other areas, and indeed, the Coastal
Plain in [ANWR] provides just about a quarter of their
typical calving ground; however, it is their preferred
calving ground and only four times in about the last
20 to 30 years have they not calved on the Coastal
Plain, which one of those times was the year 2000.
And that is because of a heavy winter snow cover.
There was no food, because the plain was still under
snow, so they calved elsewhere. But it is their
preferred area for calving.
Number 1515
CO-CHAIR MASEK interjected that there is information in the bill
packet called "Myths of ANWR," which includes some statistics on
the number of caribou in the herd from 1975 through 1996.
Number 1552
MS. SCHRADER referred to the Anchorage Daily News article that
reported that the Arctic herd has increased 35 percent. She
urged the House Resources Standing Committee members to read Ken
Whitten's overview of the caribou situation on the North Slope.
She said Mr. Whitten's overview would "explain a lot of those
details." She pointed out an article by Valkenberg, who did the
studies for ADF&G. She quoted him as writing, "I don't think
the data tell us anything about caribou and oil development."
Ms. Schrader said that just because the caribou herd has
increased in number doesn't mean that they "get along so well
with oil development." There are many other factors to
consider.
Number 1600
MS. SCHRADER stated the following regarding polling data:
... as you've just heard from Mr. Grasser, there's
supposedly clear support - super majority of support -
for opening the refuge, among Alaskans. We heard in
[the House Special Committee on Oil & Gas] from Cam
Toohey that there was a clear majority of Americans
who supported the opening of [ANWR]. I think we need
to be very careful with the polling data because
consistently it's pretty clear that those numbers
vary. Shortly after the [House Special Committee on
Oil & Gas] hearing, there was a report in the Juneau
Empire about [an] Associated Press poll that showed 60
percent of registered voters throughout America were
opposed to opening the drilling. And this conflicts
with the Christian Science Monitor poll that Cam
Toohey was referring to.
Likewise, Alaska Conservation Alliance has done
polling on this issue for several years. Our most
recent poll last year showed only 50 percent of
Alaskans supported drilling in [ANWR].
I think the bottom line with the polling data is that
Alaskans are divided over the decision to drill, and
that consistently the majority of Americans have
opposed Arctic drilling, and support some form of
permanent protection.
Number 1686
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Ms. Schrader to list the top three
concerns of those people concerned about opening up ANWR.
Number 1727
MS. SCHRADER said that people are concerned with the effect on
the environment and with the fact that ANWR makes up the last
five percent of the United States arctic region that is
currently closed to drilling. She said that people would like
to see it permanently protected. Ms. Schrader stated that
[ANWR] "represents an entire ecosystem ... it has our Arctic
Coastal Plain, it has the foothills of the Brooks Range; [ANWR]
contains the last intact arctic and sub-arctic ecosystem." She
related the following experience:
I had an interesting conversation in a taxicab that I
was sharing with a total stranger, in California.
When you explain to them that this in not the way that
we're going to become independent of foreign oil, then
people begin to put it together. So, it's going to
supply about one year's worth of oil? And we're going
to be losing protection for the last little vestige of
American Arctic? Many people are not willing to pay
that price.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE asked Ms. Schrader if she thought there
was enough energy in the world to make it unnecessary to ever
open up ANWR to oil drilling. She inquired if it was an issue
of timing.
MS. SCHRADER responded that she would hesitate to say "never,"
but that now was not the right time. She conceded that it could
be necessary to drill within her lifetime, but paraphrased the
line from Hank Lentfer's article, saying "we need that oil like
a heroin addict needs another hit."
Number 1900
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN remarked that Ms. Schrader vacillated
between science and opinion. He asked her if she had ever been
to the North Slope.
MS. SCHRADER replied no, but noted that she has been to the
Brooks Range and on the north side of the Brooks Range, directly
south of NPR-A (National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska).
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked if Ms. Schrader had ever seen
pictures [of ANWR].
MS. SCHRADER answered yes.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked Ms. Schrader if she thought the
photographs were "faked."
MS. SCHRADER replied no.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN talked about the displacement of the
caribou "five feet up," saying the caribou congregate on the
roads and pads built five feet up off the ground by the oil
industry. Representative Green said that the caribou love it on
the pads because there is a breeze up there that blows away the
insects. Furthermore, the caribou like to gather under the
pipeline because they find shade there. Representative Green
noted that Ms. Schrader often spoke using phrases such as "in
probability" and "it is likely that." Representative Green
stated:
I really find it inconsistent that you're saying by
allowing an oil field development, which would be a
fraction of what they see at Prudhoe - I mean a
fraction - that that would in any way cause the
caribou to migrate 40 miles back to the foothills. I
find that incredible that you would sit here and say
that.
MS. SCHRADER directed Representative Green's attention to a
letter in the packet to former president Bill Clinton, dated
12/11/00, from knowledgeable scientists to former President
Clinton. She stated that she herself holds a doctorate in
veterinary medicine. Ms. Schrader said that the impact to the
caribou herd's calving is not "theoretical." She mentioned
studies done by Ken Whitten showing that the calving female
members of the Arctic caribou herd are being displaced "by the
development at Prudhoe." She stated:
I do not feel qualified to go one on one with you to
discuss whether the caribou really love getting up
five feet high out of the range of the bugs, but the
scientists have spoken. And ... I don't know what
more we can do. This [House Resources Standing
Committee] has consistently asked for good science, we
have good science -- I'm not saying the
conservationists. The scientific community has good
science about the Western Arctic herd and about the
Porcupine caribou herd. And if this committee prefers
to rely on some personal observations, which are very
valid; but I do not consider personal observations to
be as valid as peer-reviewed scientific papers that
are published in scientific journals.
Number 2130
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that it is no longer a matter of what
scientist think or what their studies show, but about "absolute
fact", which is that the caribou are there. He invited Ms.
Schrader and all scientists on both sides of the issue to go [to
ANWR] and see what is happening, rather than just look at
[conflicting] reports.
MS. SCHRADER interrupted Representative Green to say, "I never
said that the caribou weren't using the area around Prudhoe,
they are. And we know that now the numbers are probably up to
20,000.
Number 2180
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked for order to be restored.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to a statement by Ms. Schrader
saying that a scientific report indicated that [the drilling of
oil in ANWR] would displace the caribou. Representative Green
suggested to Ms. Schrader that there is proof to the contrary.
He said:
You're talking about the Western and the Porcupine,
and we're talking about an oil field that's visited by
the Central caribou herd. And I don't think there's
that much difference. The Central caribou herd has
increased six-fold since the oil field was begun. And
your comment was that "Well, I don't think there's any
direct proof that says that the oil field has caused
that increase." Well isn't that kind of coming in the
back door? That's not what the oil fields or the
scientists - yours and ours - say. They're saying the
oil fields don't hinder. And that's proof that they
don't hinder. It's not saying that they're taking
responsibility for a six-fold increase; they're saying
that obviously, with a six-fold increase, they're not
adversely affecting things.
Number 2248
MS. SCHRADER corrected Representative Green by saying that the
scientists were not "her scientists." She said:
The precautionary principle here suggests that we
don't know. And all I can do is quote ... Dr.
Valkenberg in the Anchorage Daily News, who says, "I
don't think the data tell us anything about caribou
and oil development." So you are suggesting, sir,
that the increase shows that oil development does not
hurt [the caribou]. That is not what I'm hearing Dr.
Valkenberg say. We don't -- that is not a valid
conclusion to draw. And if this committee wishes to
draw that conclusion, it clearly is the right of
everyone sitting at the table. But again, please look
over the multitude of scientific articles, citations
that I presented, the overview by Dr. Whitten, the
letter signed by over 200 scientists, and the shorter
letter on caribou signed by dozens of scientists. And
I would be happy to put those scientists up against
your scientists any day.
Number 2320
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said "rather than look over the multitude
of letters from 200 scientists, I'd rather look over 20,000
caribou, instead of 3,000 caribou and suggest that maybe they
know better than either of our scientists."
Number 2338
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said she didn't think it was appropriate
to have a debate about opposing sides of science in the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting. She asked Ms. Schrader
what kind of mitigation measures have been mentioned that might
make it better to allow drilling.
Number 2365
MS. SCHRADER told Representative Kerttula that the most common
mitigation measure is that oil exploration is done during
winter, to minimize the impact on the tundra. She pointed out
that although the exploration can be done during the winter, the
actual operation of the oil field is year-round. She said that
"to the extent that road building can be minimized, as we've
seen at Alpine and Badami ... excellent. The fewer roads the
better. But there is still an extensive network of pipeline."
She stated that she is "not that familiar with all of the
details of potential mitigation measure."
Number 2400
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said:
I noticed in the material there was a citation to the
lawsuit filed by Arctic Slope challenging MMS's
[Minerals Management Service's] approval of the
exploration plans in McCovey [project]. Can you tell
us anything about what the causes of action were, or
what the lawsuit centered around?
MS. SCHRADER responded by saying:
This is a petition to the Ninth Circuit Court, it is
not actual litigation. My understanding is that if
you wish to appeal a minerals management service
approval of a plan, you'll immediately get kicked in
the Ninth Circuit Court. My understanding - and I can
certainly get you in touch with the folks who are much
more familiar with this petition - is that of course,
the Inupiats are very concerned and have consistently
opposed all off-shore drilling. And I'd just like to
repeat that because I think that that's a significant
point. We hear consistently that the Inupiats support
this, we see their resolutions, we see their letters
in support. But please understand, when we turn
around and look north to the Outer Continental Shelf,
and we look at oil exploration drilling there, these
very same Native Alaskans are opposed to that. And
the fact that they have hired attorneys and have filed
a petition in the Ninth Circuit Court to challenge the
minerals management service - this was approval of a
Phillips exploration plan for the off-shore McCovey
project. That project is 12 miles off shore. It's
about twice as far off shore as the North Star.
Because of the impact that this project might have on
their cultural and subsistence resources - the marine
mammals - they're not nearly as supportive, and in
fact, they're in strong opposition. So my suggestion
is, we need to respect the cultural and subsistence
lifestyles of all of the people up on the North Slope,
the Gwich'ins, the Inupiats, and keep that in
consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA told the witness that it would be
helpful to have a copy of [the petition] for the House Resources
Standing Committee.
Number 2525
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE commented that although the issue before
the House Resources Standing Committee is an emotional one, she
would like to see more respect and a better use of the committee
process.
CO-CHAIR MASEK closed public testimony and opened committee
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that when testimony is heard that is
"at best contradictory, at best subject to debate," then it is a
committee process to discuss it.
Number 2596
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA said that discussion is appropriate but
debating the witness is "outside our rule." She said she
thought that was the concern expressed earlier.
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE pointed out that another concern was that
members be allowed to speak without being cut off.
Number 2625
CO-CHAIR MASEK acknowledged the remarks just heard. She said
that HJR 7 has been around for many sessions and there has been
ample public testimony regarding it. She said that she thought
the focus on the issue's importance would increase this year due
to the Energy Committee meeting scheduled in Washington, D.C. in
March. She noted the timeliness of HJR 7, which she hoped would
have a greater impact on the new administration.
Number 2687
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred Ms. Schrader's earlier statement
regarding the life expectancy of the oil supply in ANWR. He
explained how the oil supply in ANWR has a direct effect on the
dwindling oil supply in Prudhoe Bay by making the following
statement:
Prudhoe Bay as we all know is on a decline. And
declines from oil fields generally are hyperbolic to
the horizontal access. And as this production gets
down closer and closer, it starts to get down around
[200,000] or 300,000 barrels a day, which in any other
field would be a magnificent amount of oil. Not at
Prudhoe. So now you're down where you're leveling off
almost horizontal, and it goes on and on and on. That
also is about the economic limit of the pipeline. In
other words, they cannot produce, or can't pump oil
economically at less than somewhere between [200,000]
and 300,000 barrels a day. So by adding a little
more, even though it may not be as great as we hope it
might be - add a couple of 300,000 barrels a day,
even, from [a] place like ANWR - we extend the life of
that pipeline years and years. And therefore, we
extract more and more and more oil that would be
forever lost from Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope
fields. So, I think the [House Resources Standing]
Committee should keep in mind that while any amount of
oil may seem like only a small percentage if it's only
a one year or half a year [supply], by extending the
life of a major oil field like Prudhoe, we really do
the State [of Alaska] and the country a service.
Because once that pipeline's gone we aren't going to
build another one.
Number 2791
CO-CHAIR MASEK commented that she has traveled up to Prudhoe Bay
several times. She noted that the oil company's technology has
vastly improved, making it possible for them to drill at
difficult angles and move in and out of areas with no impact to
the environment. She said Alaska will play a big part in oil
development in the international arena.
Number 2857
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE said that the House Resources Standing
Committee's reports show that the oil in ANWR is estimated to
last approximately 25 years. She also pointed out that even if
HJR 7 is approved this session, it would not be developed for
another 10 years.
Number 2900
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked Representative Green if the
[200,000 to 300,000] barrels of oil a day, to which he
previously referred, are necessary for volume through the line
rather than for profit.
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN answered that it was necessary for volume.
REPRESENTATIVE KERTTULA asked if anyone had contacted Gwich'in
representatives to ask them what their opinions are regarding
opening up ANWR.
CO-CHAIR MASEK replied no, although she didn't think the
Gwich'in people, who had lobbied Congress and testified against
the resolution in previous years, had changed their mind about
it now.
Number 2980
REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said that he agreed with the statement that
the Gwitchens are against drilling in ANWR, and pointed out that
the [Inupiats] - "who have an oil well right now that's shut in
their back yard" - are in favor of it.
CO-CHAIR MASEK clarified that Representative Green was referring
to the Inupiats.
Number 3000
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE began to make a motion, and was cut off
by the end of the tape. She was asked to repeat the motion.
TAPE 01-9, SIDE B
Number 2990
REPRESENTATIVE McGUIRE made a motion to pass CSHJR 7, as
amended, out of the House Resources Standing Committee, with
individual recommendations and a zero fiscal note.
Number 2973
CO-CHAIR MASEK asked if there were any objections. There being
no objections, CSHJR 7(RES) was moved out of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 2900
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Resources Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:10 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|