Legislature(2013 - 2014)BUTROVICH 205
04/05/2013 03:30 PM Senate RESOURCES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB99 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s) | |
| SB96 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | HB 99 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 96 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 4 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE
April 5, 2013
3:33 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Cathy Giessel, Chair
Senator Fred Dyson, Vice Chair
Senator Peter Micciche
Senator Lesil McGuire
Senator Hollis French
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Click Bishop
Senator Anna Fairclough
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Alaska Board of Game
Peter Probasco
Nathan Turner
- CONFIRMATIONS ADVANCED
COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 99(RES)
"An Act relating to the membership of the Alaska Minerals
Commission; and extending the termination date of the Alaska
Minerals Commission."
- MOVED CSHB 99(RES) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 96
"An Act relating to the primary period of an oil and gas or gas
only lease and the extension of a lease; relating to terms to be
included in an oil and gas or gas only lease; relating to rental
for an oil and gas or gas only lease; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED SB 96 OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR SPONSOR SUBSTITUTE FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 4(FIN)
"An Act relating to the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation;
establishing the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation as an
independent public corporation of the state; establishing and
relating to the in-state natural gas pipeline fund; making
certain information provided to or by the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation and its subsidiaries exempt from
inspection as a public record; relating to the Joint In-State
Gasline Development Team; relating to the Alaska Housing Finance
Corporation; relating to judicial review of a right-of-way lease
or an action or decision related to the development or
construction of an oil or gas pipeline on state land; relating
to the lease of a right-of-way for a gas pipeline transportation
corridor, including a corridor for a natural gas pipeline that
is a contract carrier; relating to the cost of natural
resources, permits, and leases provided to the Alaska Gasline
Development Corporation; relating to procurement by the Alaska
Gasline Development Corporation; relating to the review by the
Regulatory Commission of Alaska of natural gas transportation
contracts; relating to the regulation by the Regulatory
Commission of Alaska of an in-state natural gas pipeline project
developed by the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation;
relating to the regulation by the Regulatory Commission of
Alaska of an in-state natural gas pipeline that provides
transportation by contract carriage; repealing the statutes
relating to the Alaska Natural Gas Development Authority and
making conforming changes; exempting property of a project
developed by the Alaska Gasline Development Corporation from
property taxes before the commencement of commercial operations;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE 4/4/13
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 99
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND ALASKA MINERALS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) SADDLER
02/01/13 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/01/13 (H) RES, FIN
02/25/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/25/13 (H) Heard & Held
02/25/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
02/27/13 (H) RES AT 1:00 PM BARNES 124
02/27/13 (H) Moved CSHB 99(RES) Out of Committee
02/27/13 (H) MINUTE(RES)
03/01/13 (H) RES RPT CS(RES) NT 8DP
03/01/13 (H) DP: JOHNSON, TUCK, HAWKER, P.WILSON,
TARR, SEATON, SADDLER, FEIGE
03/20/13 (H) FIN AT 1:30 PM HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/20/13 (H) Moved CSHB 99(RES) Out of Committee
03/20/13 (H) MINUTE(FIN)
03/22/13 (H) FIN RPT CS(RES) NT 10DP
03/22/13 (H) DP: NEUMAN, GARA, GUTTENBERG, HOLMES,
MUNOZ, THOMPSON, T.WILSON, COSTELLO,
03/22/13 (H) STOLTZE, AUSTERMAN
03/25/13 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
03/25/13 (H) VERSION: CSHB 99(RES)
03/27/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/27/13 (S) RES, FIN
04/05/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
BILL: SB 96
SHORT TITLE: OIL AND GAS AND GAS ONLY LEASES
SPONSOR(s): SENATOR(s) MICCICHE
04/03/13 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/03/13 (S) RES, FIN
04/05/13 (S) RES AT 3:30 PM BUTROVICH 205
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 99.
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director
Alaska Miners Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 99.
MARLEANNA HALL, Project Coordinator
Resource Development Council
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 99.
BILL JEFFRESS, Chairman
Alaska Minerals Commission
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not provide a position on HB 99.
PETER PROBASCO, appointee
Board of Game
Palmer, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding Board of Game
appointment.
AL BARRETTE, Vice President
Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory Committee
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Board of Game appointments for
Messrs. Probasco and Turner.
DICK ROHRER, representing himself
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Board of Game appointments for
Messrs. Probasco and Turner.
SAM ROHRER, President
Alaska Professional Hunters Association
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Board of Game appointments for
Messrs. Probasco and Turner.
JASON BUNCH, representing himself
Kodiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Board of Game appointments for
Messrs. Probasco and Turner.
BRAD DENNISON, representing himself
Sitka, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Board of Game appointments for
Messrs. Probasco and Turner.
DAN MONTGOMERY, representing himself
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Board of Game appointments for
Messrs. Probasco and Turner.
NATHAN TURNER, appointee
Board of Game
Nenana, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding Board of Game
appointment.
LYLE BECKER, representing himself
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported Mr. Turner's appointment to the
Board of Game.
LARRY SEMMENS, staff for Senator Micciche
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided the sponsor's overview of SB 96.
BILL BARRON, Director
Division of Oil & Gas
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 96.
LISA PARKER, Manager
Government Relations & External Affairs
Apache Alaska Corporation
Soldotna, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 96.
SAREE TIMMONS, Petroleum Land Manager
Division of Oil & Gas
Alaska Department of Natural Resources
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Did not provide a position on SB 96.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:33:43 PM
CHAIR CATHY GIESSEL called the Senate Resources Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:33 p.m. Present at the call to
order were Senators French, Micciche, Vice Chair Dyson and Chair
Giessel.
HB 99-EXTEND ALASKA MINERALS COMMISSION
3:34:15 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced HB 99 would be up for consideration.
[CSHB 99(RES) was before the committee.]
REPRESENTATIVE DAN SADDLER, Alaska State Legislature, Juneau,
Alaska, sponsor of HB 99, said the bill would help to ensure the
growth and sustainability of a vital sector of the Alaskan
economy; that being the minerals development and mining sector.
HB 99 would extend the sunset of the Alaska Minerals Commission
(AMC) for ten years. AMC was established by the Alaska
Legislature in 1986 and had been reauthorized four times. AMC
was responsible for identifying road blocks to mineral
development in Alaska and for making recommendations to the
governor and the legislature on how to clear those impediments.
AMC meets three times a year in Anchorage, Fairbanks and in
Juneau where the commissioners deliver their annual report at
the Capitol during the first ten days of the legislative
session. Since its last reauthorization in 2003, AMC had made
several key recommendations which the legislature had since
implemented or was working out to put into place that included
but are not limited to: reforming the state permitting process
to make them more timely and efficient; funding infrastructure
development under the Roads to Resources Program; and asserting
and defending public access to roads, trails, and navigable
waterways. AMC was a proven and rather affordable voice for an
important sector of Alaska's economy. He referred to AMC's
fiscal note regarding program affordability. He said mining
employed 4,500 Alaskans, provided more than $620 million in
direct and indirect payroll, and provided jobs and revenue for
local governments and rural areas that sorely need them. He
explained that HB 99 started out as a simple extension bill, but
now provided for three years terms with a limit of two
consecutive terms and provided for the annual election of a
Chair and Vice Chair of the commission.
3:36:26 PM
DEANTHA CROCKETT, Executive Director, Alaska Miners Association
(AMA), Anchorage, Alaska, said AMA was a statewide association
representing the six large metals mines the state, one operating
coal mine, exploration projects, miners, contractors,
engineering firms, and anybody that really does business with
the mining industry. She said AMA supported HB 99 and noted that
AMC worked very closely with AMA and other resource development
organizations to identify ways to promote the industry and
eliminate barriers. She called attention to a letter from the
Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
Development (DCCED) that had a list of AMC's accomplishments
over the years. She noted that AMC had come up with and been an
integral part of decisions that were recommended to the
legislature and to the governor to help the mining industry
succeed.
3:37:37 PM
SENATOR MCGUIRE joined the committee.
MS. CROCKETT asserted that AMC was an important commission with
a small fiscal note on behalf of Alaska. She said AMC did a lot
for the mining industry and noted that she would be remiss if
she did not remind the committee that mining was the state's
second largest industry, had a high employment level in Alaska,
and a very high wage average of $100,000 that employed residents
from approximately 120 communities around the state. She
emphasized that mining had a far reaching impact and AMC helped
the mining industry greatly.
3:38:20 PM
MARLEANNA HALL, Project Coordinator, Resource Development
Council (RDC), Anchorage, Alaska, said RDC was a membership
funded statewide business association that represented forestry,
oil and gas, mining, tourism, and the fishing industry. She
stated that RDC supported passage of HB 99. She asserted that
the mining industry had been a cornerstone of Alaska's economy.
Many roads and other infrastructure throughout Alaska were
originally constructed to serve the mining industry. She said
RDC believed AMC provided the necessary voice for issues as well
as recommendations and mitigation ideas for Alaska's mineral
prospect and projects. AMC's appointed group made
recommendations to the legislature and the governor in an effort
to promote Alaska's mineral, exploration and development
industry. AMC continued to be an effective means of insuring
policy makers had the benefit of the collective input of lead
practitioners in the mining industry. She explained that mining,
consisting of exploration, development, and production in
Alaska, provided thousands of direct and indirect jobs with a
large payroll of approximately $620 million. She noted that HB
99 had incorporated term limits for commission members and term
limits for members selected as Chairman and Vice Chairman. RDC
believed that the proposed term limits would help to provide for
a fresh prospective on the minerals industry. HB 99 would bring
AMC in alignment with other boards and commissions, extend it
for another ten years, and help keep the members fresh and
active in identifying ways to mitigate constraints on mineral
development in Alaska. She said AMC had a relatively low fiscal
impact and RDC believed that the commission had a significant
impact promoting Alaska's minerals and mineral exploration
development. She explained that AMC was comprised of 11
commission members with broad-based mineral industry expertise
and represented a diverse expertise in mineral exploration and
development. She said RDC urged the committee to pass HB 99.
3:40:41 PM
BILL JEFFRESS, Chairman, Alaska Minerals Commission (AMC),
Department of Commerce, Community & Economic Development
(DCCED), Anchorage, Alaska, announced that he was available of
questions.
3:41:19 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL found no questions and asked for closing remarks
from the bill's sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said there were seven operating mines in
the state and the prospects were good for six more with the
potential for many more in the future. He emphasized the need
for Alaska to diversify its economy and resources. He said
Alaska's mining industry was the state's future as well as its
past and AMC would help the state achieve a diversified economic
future.
3:41:43 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report CSHB 99(RES) from committee to the
next committee of referral with attached fiscal notes and
individual recommendations.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that, without objection, CSHB 99(RES)
passed from the Senate Resources Standing Committee.
3:42:07 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL stated that the committee would stand at ease.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S)
CONFIRMATION HEARINGS
Board of Game
3:43:25 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL reconvened the meeting and announced that the
committee would take up the Governor's appointments to the Board
of Game. She invited Peter Probasco to testify on his
qualifications and interest in being appointed to the Board of
Game. She asked if Mr. Probasco was being reappointed.
3:44:06 PM
PETER PROBASCO, appointee to the Board of Game, Palmer, Alaska,
confirmed that he was finishing out a term on the Board of Game
and he had only been to three meetings. He explained that he
started in January and met three times. He said he found the
meetings to be very interesting, challenging, and a good way to
become much more informed about Alaska. He noted that he had
been in Alaska twice, his second time was in the Matanuska-
Susitna Valley since 1966. He said he had done a tour on
Elmendorf in the late 1950s, grew up on a Minnesota farm where
he hunted, fished, and trapped. He explained that he continued
to hunt, fish, and trap in Alaska. He noted that the only
ruminate animal he had not tried to harvest was a mountain goat.
He summarized that he was very interested in conservation and
what Alaska's constitution laid out regarding what was to be
followed and deliberated on regarding the Game of Board's big
game recommendations. He stated that he looked forward to being
on the board for another term if that was possible. He asserted
that he would learn much more about Alaska. He noted that he had
four children; two sons, both hunted and fished. He said he had
six grandsons and had the opportunity to hunt with all six of
them when they were successful in a big game hunt. He expressed
his continued interest in serving and noted that the board had
much to do in the business of game management. He said the
challenges were there and the process that the Board of Game
followed was one of the best in the nation.
3:45:55 PM
SENATOR FRENCH asked to clarify that Mr. Probasco was appointed
about a year ago and had not appeared before the committee or
been confirmed by the legislature.
CHAIR GIESSEL replied correct.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if Mr. Probasco could discuss some of the
more interesting cases that he had taken up in the last year on
the Board of Game.
MR. PROBASCO replied that one of the more interesting challenges
that the Board of Game faced was Intensive Management (IM) and
noted the many concerns from both sides of the issue. He
explained that IM was an opportunity to increase the potential
for harvest of certain game species that were very important to
many people in Alaska and coming forward with a plan that was
going to work. The IM issue was taken up at the Sitka, Wasilla,
and Kenai board meetings. There were many issues that impacted
IM that were not known. Weather played a big role in what
happened to the deer population in the Southeastern islands and
the role wolves played in decimating the numbers was also not
well established. The plan to come up with something where the
board could establish baselines in part of the area had been
very significant and a big challenge.
SENATOR FRENCH commented that Mr. Probasco had an interesting
resume with a wide array of background, activities, and
interests. He addressed IM and asked how Mr. Probasco balanced
the needs and desires of Alaskans who liked to look at animals.
He inquired how Mr. Probasco would fit people who liked to
photograph animals like wolves and bears into the equation when
he thought about authorizing IM to perhaps eradicate wolves or
bears from an area that he thought may be eating too many big
game animals like caribou and moose.
MR. PROBASCO addressed the large Southeast islands and replied
that most of the area that the board was looking at had very
little game viewing going on. He said tourism was important at
Denali to be able to view wolves, but noted that it was a rarity
in Alaska to observe wolves. He hunted for 48 years in Alaska
and had only seen wolves in the wild four or five times. He
emphasized that the board's issue was not to eliminate the
wolves, it was to bring the number back under control so not
only the wolf population stayed healthy, but so that, like in
Southeast, the deer population stayed healthy. He noted that in
Unit 13 in Central Alaska, the board wanted a very healthy moose
and caribou population. Bringing the wolves somewhat in balance
in Unit 13 was very significant.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that Mr. Probasco's distinctions were
good. He asked how Mr. Probasco balanced IM and the wolf pack
around Denali National Park.
MR. PROBASCO answered that Denali National Park was not involved
much in IM or any kind of management. He said there were issues
with the management of the park and management on the part of
the state of Alaska. He noted that the Lands Claim Act came in
recent years as to how Denali National Park should be managed.
He explained that there was much to be done in resolving the
management of the wolf population so that both the parks and the
state could go forward.
3:50:28 PM
AL BARRETTE, Vice Chairman, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory
Committee (FFGAC), Fairbanks, Alaska, supported Mr. Probasco's
appointment to the Board of Game. He said he had a chance to
watch Mr. Probasco for the last three Board of Game meetings and
what was put on the record with the decisions he had made. He
said FFGAC felt that Mr. Probasco would be a good Board of Game
member. FFGAC liked Mr. Probasco's interaction, approachability,
and open-mindedness to at least listen to subjects at hands
during board meetings. FFGAC asked that Mr. Probasco be
confirmed to the Board of Game.
3:51:56 PM
DICK ROHRER, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, supported Mr.
Probasco's appointment to the Board of Game. He noted that he
was a former member of the Kodiak Advisory Committee for many
years and had a lot of opportunities to represent the committee
in front of the Board of Game. He said he had attended the Board
of Game meeting in Sitka at the first meeting Mr. Probasco
attended as a board member and was impressed with his
performance. He noted that Mr. Probasco was very quiet, which he
expected of a first time board member in learning the issues.
Mr. Probasco asked some intelligent questions and was
approachable during the breaks. He encouraged Mr. Probasco's
confirmation to the Board of Game.
3:53:07 PM
SAM ROHRER, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), Kodiak, Alaska, said APHA supported Mr. Probasco's
appointment to the Board of Game. He noted that he was at the
Sitka Board of Game meeting and thought Mr. Probasco did a good
job and was impressed. Mr. Probasco had demonstrated himself to
be a thoughtful board member, willing to listen to all sides of
an issue before taking a position. APHA appreciated Mr.
Probasco's service and willingness to serve again. APHA
supported Mr. Probasco's appointment to the Board of Game.
3:53:59 PM
JASON BUNCH, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, noted that he
was a registered guide on Kodiak Island as well as an active
duty Coast Guardsman. He said he supported Mr. Probasco's
appointment to the Board of Game.
3:54:28 PM
BRAD DENNISON, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Probasco's appointment to the Board of Game. He
stated that he and his wife had lived in Sitka for 39 years and
had hunted in Alaska the entire time during his residence. He
noted that he attended the Sitka Board of Game meeting and said
he believed Mr. Probasco demonstrated a genuine concern for the
resource, was thoughtful, hardworking, and appeared to be fair.
Mr. Probasco was a good communicator, easy to approach, easy to
understand, and worked well with other board members. He
encouraged Mr. Probasco's confirmation to the Board of Game.
3:55:21 PM
DAN MONTGOMERY, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Probasco's appointment to the Board of Game. He
noted that he was a 31 year resident of Alaska and also served
on the Matanuska-Susitna Valley Advisory Committee as Vice
Chairman. He set forth that Mr. Probasco had demonstrated to be
a thoughtful board member. He said he attended board meetings in
Region 2 and Region 4. He noted that Mr. Probasco was good at
explaining his decisions; was very thoughtful when making
decisions; possessed a good understanding of game and hunting
regulations; was very respectful of the people; and very
approachable. He said he believed Mr. Probasco was an asset to
the Board of Game and supported his reappointment.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that the committee would forward Mr.
Probasco's name and thanked him for his willingness to serve.
3:57:30 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that the committee would interview
Nathan Turner. She asked for Mr. Turner to address his
background and reason for wanting to serve on the Board of Game.
3:58:08 PM
NATHAN TURNER, appointee to the Board of Game, Nenana, Alaska,
said he was originally asked to put his name for a Board of Game
seat several years ago and believed the interest was largely due
to his subsistence background as well as his experience as a
registered big game guide. He explained that he had made his
entire living for the last 23 years from the resources that the
land provided, whether through commercial or subsistence
fishing, trapping, guiding, or log home building. He noted that
he was the only Board of Game member who depended entirely on
Alaska's wildlife populations for the primarily means of living
and was the Board of Game's only active hunting guide as well.
He said serving on the Board of Game had been a rewarding
experience and noted working with other board members in order
to navigate through the sometimes complex and very often
controversial issues. He remarked that serving on the Board of
Game had been a growing experience. He explained that he had
spent most of his life out in the woods and believed that
natural observation had its place. He asserted that the good
data and good science that the Board of Game used for their
decision process was a fun opportunity to review and learn from.
He remarked what really stood out in his memory of the last
three years on the board was the number of times Alaskans
expressed a genuine appreciation for the board's efforts that
were put forward to maintain or even enhance hunting and
trapping opportunities at every opportunity. He said it was
important to him that some of the old views of Alaska and the
old-traditional uses had means for people to partake in the
future. When he first came to Alaska, he was introduced to some
of the older ways, such as the gentlemen's agreement with
trappers to share the land without conflict. He wanted to make
sure that the same opportunities were available for future
generations as well.
SENATOR DYSON noted Mr. Turner's statement that he was the only
active guide on the Board of Game. He asked for a quick survey
of what the professions or ways of making a living for the other
board members.
MR. TURNER replied that Chairman Ted Spraker was a retired
biologist, Stosh Hoffman worked for a native corporation in
Bethel, Bob Mumford was a retired law enforcement officer,
Teresa Sager Albaugh worked for several companies in the Tok
area, and Nick Yurko was involved in a wildlife viewing tourism
business in Southeast. He noted that Mr. Probasco previously
provided his background to the committee.
4:03:11 PM
SENATOR DYSON pointed out a letter from Tina Brown that says Mr.
Turner had an obvious conflict of interest. He asked if the
conflict of interest was from Mr. Turner being a big game
hunter.
MR. TURNER replied that he was not sure what Ms. Brown was
referencing and noted that he had spoken with Ms. Brown in the
past. He said he would assume Ms. Brown was inferring about his
big game background and that he depended on wildlife for his
entire living.
SENATOR FRENCH noted that the Board of Game hearing in Sitka had
a proposal presented that would allow residents of Alaska to
have an earlier season opener than nonresidents. He explained
that the proposal would allow residents to go out and hunt moose
and caribou before nonresidents. He asked if Mr. Turner recalled
the proposal.
MR. TURNER answered that he did recall the proposal and noted
that there were a series of nine proposals that came together as
a group.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that he did not know what happened at the
meeting except for what was given to him from an Alaska Dispatch
article and read the paragraph that involved Mr. Turner as
follows:
Board member Nathan Turner from Nenana, a rural
community in Interior Alaska, observed that there are
significant parts of the state where nonresidents are
about the only hunters. Those hunters, he added,
helped support jobs in the Alaska guide businesses and
provide the state a big chunk of change for wildlife
conservation in the form of high fees paid for
nonresident tags and permits.
He asked if the paragraph he read was more or less a synopsis of
Mr. Turner's position on the proposal.
MR. TURNER answered yes.
SENATOR FRENCH responded that the reason why some folks asked
whether Mr. Turner understood his conflict of interest as a big
game guide who would take nonresident hunters out into the
field. He noted that when Mr. Turner was asked if any of his
votes on matters that came before the board might affect him or
a member of his family financially, he answered no on the form
that came with Mr. Turner's application.
MR. TURNER answered that the issue Senator French was referring
to came up in Southeast and was particularly for the Southeast
units, all of the proposals addressed Units 1-5 and maybe 6. He
explained that he had no financial interest in those regions,
had never guided there, and never intended to. He reiterated
that the proposals only addressed Southeast regions.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that he would take Mr. Turner's word that
the proposals were strictly about Southeast. He noted that
earlier in the article it said that board members thought a
statewide preference went too far, so it implied to him that
there were other parts of the state up for that proposal. He
asked Mr. Turner if he could see how a question like that if it
were applied to an area where he trapped, hunted or guided
clients might affect him financially.
MR. TURNER answered that he agreed and it was something that he
was cognizant of. He explained that any other board member and
the majority of the public would agree that he had been very
careful to recuse himself of any situation that would even hint
of benefiting himself in any way financially.
4:07:20 PM
He noted an example where the Board of Game created a community
permit system in Unit 9 to allow the harvest of brown bears out
of the normal hunting season to address the local villagers'
concern for safety and several other factors. He asserted that
the Unit 9 issue had nothing to do with guiding, but asked to be
recused due to the possibility of indirect benefit. The Board of
Game's Chairman, Cliff Judkins, said he did not see a reason for
conflict, but decided to step down to avoid the appearance of
impropriety. He noted that he had done his best to recuse
himself throughout the state on all of the issues that addressed
areas or regions that he either guided in or worked for someone
that guided in. He said his comment about how it could have a
negative impact on the state wildlife management was generally
true and had nothing to do with his own personal financial
interests. He noted that it was commonly know that nonresident
hunting provided for 70 percent of the funding through direct
payment and Pittman-Robertson Funds for wildlife management in
Alaska, a very important aspect of funding Alaska's programs.
SENATOR FRENCH stated that the conflict of interest statement
that Mr. Turner answered was really prospective and not
retrospective. He asked if Mr. Turner or any member of his
family be affected financially by decisions to be made by the
board or commission for which he was applying. He inquired how
he would answer that question today.
MR. TURNER replied that none of the decisions he had made had
led to or foresaw anyway of benefitting from in the future.
SENATOR FRENCH remarked that was not how it reads and did not
ask if you made decisions that affected you, the question was
prospective. He asked if Mr. Turner or any member of his family
be affected financially by decisions to be made by the Board of
Game Board for which he was applying.
MR. TURNER replied that board members were asked to identify
what those decisions would be or could be in reference to the
proposals that were in front of them and that was how he
proactively did it at every meeting. He said the board reviewed
and studied proposals in great depth before the meetings and he
would recuse himself if he foresaw any hint of economic
advantage or disadvantage. He noted that he had asked to be
recused during the middle of meetings when catching on to a
nuance to a proposal that he had not anticipated. He said he was
doing his best and promised he would continue to.
4:11:39 PM
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that he appreciated the fact that Mr.
Turner was saying his actions would keep him from having a
conflict. He agreed with Senator French that probably a "yes"
was a better answer, but appreciated the way Mr. Turner
operated. He noted his own experience with the Board of Fish and
appreciated the fact that sport fishermen, commercial fishermen,
and guides were on that board. He asserted that it was
imperative that the Board of Game had folks that sort of knew
the lay of the land from all of the different ways that the
board could be affected. He said it sounded like Mr. Turner was
very cognizant and careful about when he had a conflict. He
stated that he was very impressed by reading Mr. Turner's
biography and noted that the Board of Game would benefit from
his experience. He stated that he heard from folks that he
respected very much that said Mr. Turner was a great candidate
to continue.
4:13:03 PM
AL BARRETTE, Vice Chairman, Fairbanks Fish and Game Advisory
Committee (FFGAC), Fairbanks, Alaska, said he supported Mr.
Turner's appointment to the Board of Game. He explained that
most of the FFGAC members enjoyed an opportunity to work with
Mr. Turner and watch him grow during his last term as a Board of
Game member. He said what FFGAC really liked was that Mr. Turner
attended advisory committee meetings, something that was very
important to FFGAC. He noted that at meetings, Mr. Turner
explained what board actions were taken and some of the
background reasoning on why the board had taken action the way
they did. He said FFGAC believed that Mr. Turner was honest and
had high integrity. He said some other things that were really
important to FFGAC was that Mr. Turner reads all of the advisory
committee comments put forth in front of him, readily referred
to advisory committee comments to proposals when that topic was
up, and placed on the record or made a comment that specific
advisory committees were interested or made comments. He said
FFGAC asked that Mr. Turner be approved for confirmation and
appointed him to the Board of Game.
4:14:35 PM
LYLE BECKER, representing himself, Anchorage, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Turner's appointment to the Board of Game. He
noted that he was a registered guide and a board member of the
South Central Chapter of the Alaska Trappers Association. He
stated that he found Mr. Turner to be incredibly level headed,
even keeled, and was always willing to openly respond to any
inquiry. He said Mr. Turner appeared to be a very "everything on
top of the table" type of person.
4:15:27 PM
DICK ROHRER, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Turner's appointment to the Board of Game. He
explained to the committee that he had come to Alaska almost 50
years ago and was a hunter, fisherman, Kodiak Advisory Board
member, and Board of Game meetings attendee. He said he had
known Mr. Turner for a number of years and knew him as a man of
integrity, honesty, and was approachable as a board member. Mr.
Turner brought a unique experience to the board with his
lifestyle, experience in trapping, subsistence, sport hunting,
and knowledge in the guide industry. He state that he gave Mr.
Turner high marks for listening carefully to public and
department testimony, asking good questions, being attentive,
never being aggressive, and not putting a person down that he
may not have agreed with. He added that Mr. Turner had not
always voted in a way that he would have liked him to, but
supported his careful and honest consideration of all of the
issues in making good decisions.
4:17:33 PM
SAM ROHRER, President, Alaska Professional Hunters Association
(APHA), Kodiak, Alaska, said APHA supported Mr. Turner's
appointment to the Board of Game. He stated that it was
challenging to find a person who was able to successfully
navigate the complex and often contentious issues that the Board
of Game process presented. An affective board member must be
willing to weigh all sides of a proposal while carefully
considering its biological and allocative implications. Board of
Game members must always approach a process with an open mind.
Over the last three years, Mr. Turner had proven himself to be
just such a board member. Mr. Turner had demonstrated a
willingness to look closely at all sides of an issue, carefully
considered the views of interested parties before reaching a
position on any given issue, and had taken time to carefully
place the long term health of the resource first. He noted Mr.
Turner's extensive backcountry experience as a fulltime trapper,
hunting guide, and subsistence hunter had put him in a unique
position to relate to the various user groups who brought issues
before the board. He said it was APHA's opinion that Mr. Turner
was the right person for the job and be confirmed for
reappointment. He noted that he had spent quite a bit of time
out in the field guiding with Mr. Turner and found him to be an
excellent woodsman and a true conservationist.
4:19:23 PM
JASON BUNCH, representing himself, Kodiak, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Turner's appointment to the Board of Game. He
stated that he had the opportunity to work with Mr. Turner on
various subcommittees and noted him as being an exceptional
mentor who possessed an unyielding desire to do what was best
for Alaska and Alaskan's resources. Mr. Turner was honest,
humble, and consistently shown an open mind during discussion
groups concerning issues at hand. He said as a board member, Mr.
Turner truly defined Alaska and many of the issues brought
before the board. He supported Mr. Turner's reconfirmation to
the Board of Game.
4:19:51 PM
BRAD DENNISON, representing himself, Sitka, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Turner to retain his appointment to the Board of
Game. He stated that he had personally known Mr. Turner for
quite a few years and noted his genuine concern for Alaska's
resources. Mr. Turner was hard working, fair, and always asked
the right questions to bring enough information to the board so
a fair and reasonable decision could be made. Mr. Turner worked
very well with the public and other board members, was very easy
to approach, and a good communicator. He encouraged the
committee members to confirm Mr. Turner to the Board of Game.
4:20:53 PM
DAN MONTGOMERY, representing himself, Wasilla, Alaska, said he
supported Mr. Turner's appointment to the Board of Game. He
noted that he was a Master Guide and had been living in Alaska
for 31 years. He explained that he also served as Vice Chairman
on the Matanuska-Susitna Valley Advisory Committee of Game. He
set forth that he supported Mr. Turner to be reappointed to the
Board of Game and noted Mr. Turner to be an exceptional board
member over the last three years. Mr. Turner researched the
Board of Game's proposals thoroughly, explained his decisions
thoroughly, was very fair, and ethical when making decisions. He
said he had been at all of the Board of Game meetings for Region
2 and Region 4 since 2007 and Mr. Turner had always recused
himself whenever there was even a hint of conflict of interest
concerning nonresident allocation versus resident allocation for
guiding. He said he strongly supported Mr. Turner's
renomination.
4:22:08 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that finding no further comments, public
testimony was closed. She said the appointee list had concluded
for the day. She stated that in accordance with AS 39.05.080,
the Senate Resources Committee reviewed the following and
recommended the appointments be forwarded to a joint session for
consideration: Board of Game, Peter Provasco and Nathan Turner.
She said the appointment recommendations did not reflect intent
by any committee member to vote for or against the confirmation
of the individuals during any further sessions. She announced
that the transmittal document would be passed around the
committee. She thanked Mr. Provasco and Mr. Turner for their
willingness to serve.
4:23:03 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that the committee would stand at ease.
SB 96-OIL AND GAS AND GAS ONLY LEASES
4:24:09 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced SB 96 to be up for consideration.
4:24:34 PM
LARRY SEMMENS, staff for Senator Micciche, sponsor of SB 96,
Alaska State Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said the bill proposed
to allow the commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) to extend oil and gas, and gas only leases on a
one-time basis to allow a lease holder additional time to
develop and get a lease productive. He stated that the DNR and
industry supported SB 96. He explained that SB 96 had a zero
fiscal note. He detailed that SB 96 would fix shorter-term, five
and seven year issued leases that entailed situations where the
leases should be extended. He noted that there was no statutory
authority to extend the leases. He said oil and gas, or gas only
leases did not expire as long the leases were producing, or if
the lease land was part of a unit that was producing; otherwise
the lease term was limited to the initial term. He explained
that SB 96 would provide the statutory authorization to extend a
lease if it was in the best interest of the state to do so.
4:26:56 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that the committee would stand at ease.
4:28:36 PM
BILL BARRON, Director, Division of Oil & Gas (DOG), Alaska
Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage, Alaska, said
SB 96 would address areas in the statutes that were a bit remiss
in the DNR's ability to manage state land. He asserted that
there was no way to extend a lease out of its primary term other
than through active drilling, being part of a unit, or was part
of production. He said there were opportunities where short term
leases issued by DOG had companies diligently trying to work
their leases while coming up to the brink of their term without
drilling a well or proving hydrocarbons. Rather than having oil
and gas companies release their acreage just to go back into a
lease-sale and take the risk of not being a party to pick it up,
oil companies tend to bring forward unit applications which were
not necessarily fully mature. He explained that DOG gets into a
dialogue of what was and was not a "unit." He informed the
committee that a simple one, two, or three year extension would
have given the oil and gas companies the ability to drill wells
and prove-up their acreage in a timelier manner. The DNR
commissioner's decision would not be based upon work that was
planned to be done. The first step in the decision process would
address what work had been done on a lease. The lease extension
decision was not about warehousing and the interaction with the
lessees allowed the commissioner to look over a lease's history.
Companies that had done little or no work on their lease would
have a tough battle to get past the first step. The second step
in the process was that the oil and gas companies would be
buying a premium or an option in order for the DNR to manage the
state's land. A performance bond or work commitment that
identified the types of funding or work may be required. The
process at the second stage was a contractual negotiation of a
term. The process was an opportunity for the state to talk to
companies about the lease work's scope, funding, and timing that
they had in a primary term. Leases would expire if a company did
not establish performance terms and conditions.
He addressed a slide to the committee that displayed short term
leases for the North Slope, Foothills, and Beaufort Sea regions.
Short term leases were divided into three expiration groups: two
years or less, two to five years, and outside of five years.
There were 104 leases in the first group with multiple companies
having leases that were to expire in two years or less. He noted
that Repsol and Alaska Venture Capital Group (AVCG) were
actively trying to work their short term leases and explained
that they were running into a time clock. He said the DNR was
trying to not have leases come back to lease-sale for companies
that were working hard to develop their acreage.
SENATOR FRENCH noted that Repsol stood head-and-shoulders above
other oil companies for short term leases that were to expire in
two years or less. He asked if Mr. Barrons could comment on the
amount of leases Repsol had that were expiring.
MR. BARRONS replied that Repsol stepped in a couple of years ago
to acquire some of the acreage in joint cooperation with
Armstrong Oil and Gas. Repsol recognized very clearly that they
were under-the-gun and aggressively approached the opportunity
immediately. Repsol had a rig up within the first drilling
season and started processing drilling activities. Repsol was
the kind of company that was actually trying to drive while
recognizing the time frame. He asserted that DOG should not be
put into a position to hurt the companies later. He noted that
Repsol and AVCG were clearly the first two candidates. He said
the big player for the out-years, the seven year leases was
Great Bear Petroleum Ventures (GBPV). GBPV's focus was on shale
based oil and their out-years would be addressed as well. He
agreed that Repsol was a very interesting case and reiterated
that they did not come into the primary lease activity. Repsol
had shown their ability to get going and prove-up acreage as
quickly as possible. Additional time would allow Repsol to
continue their operations and Repsol had the knowledge with rigs
under contract. Working with Repsol was the kind of game that
the DNR was trying to make sure was played out correctly.
4:34:33 PM
MR. BARRONS addressed the Cook Inlet and noted that Apache
Alaska Corporation's (AAC) operations stood out. He explained
that AAC did very similar activities that Repsol did with other
companies in the Cook Inlet and bought a large area of acreage
that was scattered across Cook Inlet's western and eastern
sides. He said some of AAC's acreage was clearly coming up short
in terms of time. AAC was the kind of player that DOG also
wanted to encourage. He noted that AAC's diverse acreage was a
challenge for DOG. Companies had to understand what work had to
be done on specific acreage and not on the totality of their
leases. Extended time would not apply to requests for seismic
testing or getting wells drilled. He said the DNR commissioner
and DOG wanted the committee to appreciate that the intent was
getting a work program established for: drilling wells,
advancing technology, and bringing resources to market as
quickly as possible. The process would provide the state with a
better understanding of its resources.
SENATOR MICCICHE explained that his interest in the bill
addressed the three top prospects for getting gas to market in
Cook Inlet: AAC, Buccaneer, and Hilcorp. The three companies had
a large number of leases that were coming up against the less
than two year deadline. He said we certainly want to encourage
the three companies to hopefully get some gas to market as soon
as possible without starting over.
4:36:50 PM
MR. BARRONS answered that he agreed. He said the intent was to
assist people who have diligently tried to progress a lease
without having to release it and try to get it back. There was
also a balance that had to be recognized in the general business
practice of lease-sales. Some companies were concerned that not
managing extensions properly could be seen as a way to hold
acreage in a competitive market. Some companies knew the geology
as well as others and were waiting for leases to expire for the
next bid-round. DOG understood the concerns for holding acreage
and noted that the intent was for the state to benefit from
lessees that were doing the work on their five or seven year
lease. He remarked that if there were issues on timing, weather,
rigs, equipment, or whatever the problems were, DOG would have
an opportunity to listen and then firm up a strong contractual
deal. He said a contractual deal would make companies drill
wells with bonding, committed work programs, and elevated rental
agreements. The clear intent was for the DOG to form a new
contractual business relationship with companies for the next
year or two if extensions were granted.
He reiterated that extensions were not guaranteed, a five year
lease would not get a five year extension. Extensions would be
handled on a case basis with decisions based upon a company's
committed work program. He said an example was a five year
extension might be provided if annual performance-gates were set
and not meeting the goals could lead to lease expiration. He
explained that the extension process was an opportunity for the
state to really engage with the industry in a very positive way
by encouraging development. DOG was excited about the extension
process and believed it to be an important issue for the
division. He explained that both the industry and the state
would benefit from the lease extensions. The industry would be
accommodated for shorter drilling windows and additional time
for working diligently. The state benefited from requiring a
work program for the first time that encouraged ongoing work to
be completed. He emphasized the importance of a work program for
increasing the probability of leases being brought on to
production more quickly.
SENATOR FRENCH stated that he appreciated being brought up to
speed by Mr. Barrons. He noted having a meeting with Mr. Barrons
prior to the committee meeting and said there were some folks,
including himself, that believed a work program should be setup
in the first five years. He said he realized what the state's
current philosophy was, but it struck him that having a firm set
of work commitments earlier rather than later would benefit
everybody. He noted that work commitments in an initial lease
was not the bill in front of the committee and would set the
point aside.
4:40:11 PM
SENATOR FRENCH noted that Repsol's approximate 60 leases were
coming up for expiration. He asked if Repsol's leases would be a
lease-by-lease decision, or would the DOG just say that it
really liked Repsol, the company had a lot of money, and they
would be given a break.
MR. BARRONS replied that DOG's clear intent was to require the
companies to come in and explain what they had been doing on the
leases. Some of the leases would be bundled with contiguous
lease blocks identified and area work activity noted. Some of
the leases could be packaged as A-B-C with extensions managed in
a negotiated settlement where packaged leases were addressed
separately. He addressed GBPV'S 500,000 un-unitized acreage of
shale and noted that it was going to very interesting to see.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how many individual leases there were
within GPBV's huge swath of property.
MR. BARRONS answered several hundred.
SENATOR FRENCH asked to confirm that there could not be more
than 5,000 acres per lease.
MR. BARRONS answered correct. He explained that GBPV's leases
were quarter-sectioned for reasons associated with shale
development. GBPV did their work along the highway which was a
smart and well-reasoned activity. He said DOG would ask GBPV
what they were going to do at other parts of the acreage and the
division would have difficulty with a reply where GBPV would get
to other areas of their lease in five years. He specified that
his comment was not an official stand, but if GBPV were to meet
with DOG today, it would be a hard road for them to hoe.
SENATOR FRENCH asked what would happen if a bigger company
wanted to buy GBPV's leases. He said his view would be that the
second company should start and stand in GBPV's shoes. The new
company, despite their best intensions and deep pockets, decided
to buy leases that were expiring. The scenario he presented
would be a tough case for DOG to decide because suddenly there
was a new player with a lot of money on leases that were
expiring.
MR. BARRONS replied that oil and gas was a very intelligent and
sophisticated industry. When a company comes in and buys acreage
from someone who already owns the lease; they would know what
the rules and contractual obligations were. The new owner would
have to abide by the original lease and it was not DOG's problem
if the new company did not "action" activities associated within
the given time frame. The DOG's problem was to make sure that
the lease was either worked or returned so that the division
could lease it to somebody else.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that he appreciated Mr. Barrons' reply,
especially given the shifting sort of ownership structures where
a lessee created a new oil company to buy the leases in order to
obtain five additional years.
MR. BARRONS answered that Repsol was a good example of somebody
who did buy-in, recognized what the rules were, and progressed
as quickly as they possibly could.
SENATOR FRENCH replied that Repsol hurried a rig up to their
lease, had a blow out and some bad luck. He said the example of
Repsol struck him as an easy case where a company ran into force
majeure problems that they could not overcome. He asked Mr.
Baron to address a letter for AAC where they raised two concerns
regarding the performance bond and $250 an acre. He inquired how
many leases in general would a $250 per acre charge be sort of
out of bounds and above what was paid in the first place.
MR. BARRONS replied that the $250 uplift applied to years eight,
nine, and ten. The current lease terms were introduced two years
ago on entry level leases at $25 an acre, previously it was $3
per acre and the lease terms were a very low entry price. He
reiterated that oil and gas companies were sophisticated and
knew how to make business decisions. Companies had a business
choice if they had not been diligently progressing land for
seven years. A company would have to decide if the increased
cost of holding land as an exclusive right at $250 acre for the
last three years was viable. The alternative was relinquishing
the acreage, putting it back to the lease-sale, and allowing DOG
to manage it through the lease-sale process. He noted that one
company had leaned in and said the increased cost should only be
150 percent. He opined that 150 percent of $3 an acre really did
not give him a warm comfort required from a business negotiating
standpoint and allow a company to not be serious about moving
the land. He said for the reasons previously noted, it was
clearly the discretion of the commissioner to decide if a
company had been doing work in order to authorize waving the
$250 per acre charge and allow the original lease to be
maintained. He addressed comments and concerns about a required
work program. He reiterated that if a company wanted an
extension, they would be asking for an option to hold land
exclusively and there should be something that goes back to the
state. If a company wanted the luxury to have land for an
extended period of time, something had to be in it for the
state. He asserted that the state required wells to be drilled
in order to hold acreage longer and the requirement he set forth
was a very simple business philosophy that the DOG followed to
get wells drilled.
SENATOR MICCICHE stated that the maximum lease extension to the
primary terms was up to five years with a total primary lease
and extension not to exceed ten years.
4:47:56 PM
MR. BARRONS replied that Senator Micciche's statement was a
critical piece and DOG was working with the Senator's staff to
make sure that at no time would any of the primary terms exceed
ten years. He emphasized that there could only be one and only
one extension.
SENATOR MICCICHE added that it was imperative for Alaskans to
understand that the intent was getting leases to work and
producing hydrocarbons. He emphasized that the extensions were
not about a landholding program.
MR. BARRONS concurred with Senator Micciche.
4:48:42 PM
LISA PARKER, Manager, Government Relations & External Affairs,
Apache Alaska Corporation (AAC), Soldotna, Alaska, thanked
Senator Micciche for working with ACC and the administration in
moving SB 96 forward. She said SB 96 would allow the DNR
commissioner to extend the term of oil and gas leases or gas
only leases beyond the original primary term. The legislation
offered an alternative to last minute rushes to create units,
proposed placement of rigs, or other lease saving operations
that would allow an operator to hold its oil and gas leases. She
noted that the DNR dealt with repeated requests for extensions
that wasted time while a company continued to hold its units
with no actual work being performed. She explained that AAC was
a new operator in Alaska and the company acquired a significant
amount of acreage with leases that were expiring prior to
seismic exploration completion. AAC's seismic studies helped to
delineate the potential for oil and gas resources. AAC had been
aggressive in exploration and development efforts since the fall
of 2010. ACC possessed and continued to find new and innovative
ways to conduct seismic studies that created only the slightest
disturbance while gathering good quality data. AAC employed a
cutting-edge technology that in 2012 resulted in seismic
acquisition on over 200,000 acres within the Cook Inlet basin.
She informed the committee that AAC "spudded" their first well
on the Cook Inlet's west side in late 2011. She stated that
there was still a lot of work left to do and AAC was hopeful
that in working with the DNR there would be an opportunity to
continue its 3D seismic program to better identify the Cook
Inlet's potential. She noted that AAC had submitted a letter to
the committee on suggestion changes to SB 96. She summarized
that AAC's general manager, John Hendrix, had stated on numerous
occasions that, "Apache does not sit on its assets." AAC wanted
an opportunity to delineate its assets before commencing with
exploration efforts and that was the reason why the company was
working with Senator Micciche and the administration.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that finding no further comments, public
testimony was closed.
4:52:22 PM
SENATOR FRENCH inquired if the only way to extend a lease term
was through unitization.
MR. BARRONS answered yes. He explained that lease extensions
could occur through unitization or active drilling.
SENATOR FRENCH clarified that what he meant was doing something
short of doing something productive.
MR. BARRONS responded that companies could process the
application for unitization.
SENATOR FRENCH noted that unitization would be tough to do if
there had not been drilling, but it was an avenue that the
companies pursued. He inquired if the ability to extend leases
would be considered one more negotiation option between the
industry and the department.
MR. BARRONS answered that the DNR had thought about what Senator
French had said. He explained a statute that stated companies
would have to come to the commissioner 180 days prior to lease
termination. Companies would have to plan and have an idea of
where they were 180 days prior to lease expiration. Companies
should provide the DNR with the latitude of time and come to
them with a plan and a program.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how many leases were turned straight back
to the DNR where and owner-operator gives back their lease.
MR. BARRONS asked Saree Timmons to answer Senator French's
question.
4:54:19 PM
SAREE TIMMONS, Petroleum Land Manager, Division of Oil & Gas
(DOG), Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Anchorage,
Alaska, stated that she did not have the information.
SENATOR FRENCH asked for a "ballpark" answer.
MR. BARRONS replied that the number was small number, less than
ten percent.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how often lease extensions would be used.
MR. BARRONS replied that the Senator's question was speculative
and he would reply with a speculative answer. He advised that
companies would come in 50 percent of the time and ask for
extensions without having done anything with their leases. He
said requests for extensions without lease activity would be a
very short conversation.
SENATOR FRENCH asked how often the DNR would say "yes" to an
extension request.
MR. BARRONS replied that the decisions would clearly depend on
the quality of the applications.
CHAIR GIESSEL asked if Mr. Semmens had any closing remarks as
carrier of the bill.
MR. SEMMENS thanked the committee for hearing the bill. He
acknowledged the DNR for their excellent work and appreciated
hearing from the industry as well.
4:56:00 PM
SENATOR DYSON moved to report SB 96 from committee with attached
fiscal note and individual recommendations.
CHAIR GIESSEL announced that, without objection, SB 96 moved
from committee with attached zero fiscal note.
CHAIR GIESSEL adjourned the Senate Resources Standing Committee
meeting at 4:56 p.m.