Legislature(2017 - 2018)BUTROVICH 205
02/17/2017 03:30 PM Senate SPECIAL CMTE ON THE ARCTIC
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR5 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| HJR 5 | |||
HJR 5-ENDORSING ANWR LEASING; RELATED ISSUES
CHAIR GIESSEL announced consideration of HJR 5. [CSHJR 5(AET)
labeled 30-LS0314\J, was before the committee.] She stated that
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area has
been the subject of countless efforts by this legislature. A
product of the compromise of the Alaska National Interest Lands
Conservation Act (ANILCA), this area was specifically set aside
for potential exploration and resource development. This
resolution supports the efforts of the Alaska congressional
delegation to complete the compromise fashioned all those years
ago to preserve the industry and infrastructure that keeps
Alaska great.
3:33:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DEAN WESTLAKE, Alaska State Legislature, Kiana,
Alaska, sponsor of HJR 5, stated that the resolution is about
the coastal plain of ANWR, which is in his district. His
constituents rely heavily on subsistence, but they also need
jobs, meaning resource development jobs, and this measure urges
the U.S. Congress to pass legislation to open the coastal plains
of ANWR to oil and gas development. It would be beneficial to
both Alaska and the United States creating thousands of jobs
across the nation. He concluded that he interested in jobs,
jobs, and subsistence.
3:34:13 PM
JESSE LOGAN, staff to Representative Dean Westlake, Alaska State
Legislature, Juneau, Alaska, said HJR 5 signifies a unified
voice from the State Legislature to Congress prioritizing the
opening of the coastal plain of ANWR. It recognizes that the
state has made efforts in developing renewable energy and is not
focusing solely on fossil fuels. In the end, this resolution is
mostly about self-determination for the state in developing its
own resources and being able to pay its own way, and having jobs
and a thriving economy.
SENATOR KELLY thanked Representative Westlake for bringing the
resolution forward and commented that he would move it from
committee now if he could, but it has to go through the process.
SENATOR OLSON asked what kind of opposition the other body had
to this resolution.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE replied that the other body heard a lot
of testimony, and there is great concern for both the
availability of subsistence caribou and recreational activities.
In looking at both sides of recreation versus perpetuation of a
culture and standard of living, one must weigh which one should
be more substantial. In this case, the cultures should be
perpetuated.
SENATOR OLSON asked what kind of opposition he heard from other
from elected officials who are representing a large population.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE replied that there was a vote of 31 to
4.
SENATOR DUNLEAVY said this is a fantastic bill. It benefits his
district, but it also benefits the entire State of Alaska. More
oil in the pipeline benefits the treasury and the more people
put to work benefits Alaskans. "I agree with you. We can do
both..."
3:38:19 PM
At ease
3:38:56 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL called the meeting back to order at 3:30:56 p.m.
SENATOR OLSON said the two of them represent many of the same
people and asked Representative Westlake for a feeling of what
the local people want to happen in that area.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE deferred that answer to Mr. Logan and
the role the Alaska Arctic Policy Commission had on that
concern.
MR. LOGAN answered that during the two years the Alaska Arctic
Policy Commission traveled around the state, it had several
meetings: one was in Barrow. They had a complete day of
"listening sessions" when representatives, elders, and prominent
individuals from all the villages on the North Slope mostly said
they would much rather see opening of oil and gas developing in
ANWR onshore rather than the offshore OCS [Outer Continental
Shelf], because one, it was closer to them and they wanted the
jobs and two, because it could be done safely.
3:40:27 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL opened public testimony.
3:40:35 PM
PAMELA MLLER, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed
HJR 5. She is a former bird biologist, seismic monitor biologist
who studied impacts in Prudhoe Bay, wilderness guide, and now a
small business owner. She spends time in the refuge in the
summer and winter. They are talking about "the real Alaska" and
a sustainable future for the state. A new vision is needed to
look for the new economies well beyond oil, and now is a good
time to do that, she said.
The Arctic Refuge was established before statehood, including
the coastal plain "1002" area. It is an integral part of the
refuge and has a rich cultural dependence by Inupiat and
Gwich'in.
One common falsehood about the refuge: the so-called 2,000-acre
impact is a hoax. She said 1.5 million acres would be open to
leasing, but the United States Geological Survey (USGS) said
that the potential prospects precluded accumulations as large as
Prudhoe Bay.
3:42:06 PM
She believes that tourism is a far better way to go. Fairbanks
has a growing tourism market and it is a vital part of its
economy. The state has much more oil remaining in the Prudhoe
Bay field, both conventional and unconventional, and that oil is
much more valuable.
3:43:17 PM
JOHN BOST, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, supported
protection of e ANWR and opposed HJR 5. A refuge is supposed to
provide protection and shelter, and the wildlife in the refuge
needs to be protected. Oil and gas drilling in the refuge would
be devastating to the wilderness and wildlife and it seems
incompatible with the refuge. Aside from that, the state needs
to transition away from fossil fuels and develop and use
alternative and renewable energy resources.
3:45:24 PM
ENEI PETER, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed HJR
5. She is Navajo and married into the Gwich'in tribe. Many
Alaskans don't want this area opened for drilling despite an
"outdated" survey saying that many people want it. She opposed
it for the cultural and subsistence impacts it will have on the
Gwich'in people and because of climate change. "It is imperative
that we don't take more fossil fuels out of the ground for our
future generations." This is not a solution for our current
fiscal crisis and there may not be anything substantially there.
3:48:07 PM
CHARLOTTE BASHAM, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska,
strongly opposed HJR 5. The estimated amount of recoverable oil
in the refuge is not worth the cost of the necessary
infrastructure that would do irreparable harm to the fragile
ecosystem. ANWR is a treasure to be preserved. She said a wide
diversity of wildlife, especially caribou, is sacred to the
Gwich'in people. It is important to preserve wilderness - just
knowing that it is there. "We do not need the oil. We should
develop renewable energy, instead," she said. Developing
renewable energy actually creates more jobs than developing oil.
3:50:03 PM
FRAN MAUER, representing himself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed HJR
5. He was fortunate to have worked as a wildlife biologist at
ANWR for 21 years. One of the things he learned while working
there is that the coastal plain of the refuge is the most
heavily used as calving ground for the Porcupine caribou herd,
and the impacts that happen there will influence a far greater
area of Alaska and Canada than 2,000 acres or even 1.5 million
acres.
Many people think that the coastal plain of the refuge is just
like Prudhoe Bay where there are some caribou in proximity to
oil development. However, the refuge is far different. The
mountains in northeastern Alaska come very close to the coast
line, leaving a narrow area for caribou to give birth and
nurture their young. It has five times as many animals than at
Prudhoe Bay and they are depending on one-fifth as much habitat
for a critical part of their lives. Studies at Prudhoe Bay have
shown that the females with young are displaced by development
activity during the calving and post-calving seasons.
Studies of the caribou calving grounds in the refuge indicate
that if caribou are displaced by oil field development, they
will move nearer the mountains to areas of higher predation and
mortality, and the herd will decline. This will affect more
wildlife than just the caribou.
3:52:29 PM
JULIA YORK, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed to
HJR 5. Ms. York was born and raised in Fairbanks and has a
Master's degree in biology. Her family has been directly
affected by the budgetary crisis in Alaska, and further
developing oil infrastructure makes no economic sense. Oil
prices will be maintained by OPEC or drop even further in the
next several decades due to oversupply. Opening ANWR will only
further tie Alaska to this failing global market.
China is investing $50 trillion in renewable energies, and
Alaska lawmakers would have the state give tens of millions in
tax breaks to oil companies for the possibility of getting
revenue more than a decade from now. Yet 31 towns and villages
in Alaska require relocation at this moment due to rising sea
levels, and each relocation is going to cost $100 million. That
is over $3 billion that is needed now. She believes that we are
beyond the tipping point of climate change. Oil development of
the tundra only exacerbates this problem, because disturbing the
tundra thaws the permafrost and releases tons of stored carbon
into the atmosphere multiplying the effects of climate change.
MS. YORK said the Arctic is warming more than twice as fast as
any other place on earth, and because it is so cold, and the
coastal plain ecosystem is already facing these enormous
challenges. Further human disturbance would mean permanent
destruction of this ecosystem.
One of the primary arguments for opening ANWR is that it will
impact a very small area and that it can be done in an
environmentally responsible manner. Unfortunately, the oil
companies are misleading Alaskans about their ability to be
environmentally responsible.
3:54:47 PM
JOHN STRASENBURGH, representing himself, Talkeetna, Alaska,
opposed HJR 5. He has lived in Alaska for over 40 years and has
visited the Arctic Refuge including on the coastal plain 1002
area many times on extended trips. He has many memorable and
inspirational experiences there "that speak to my soul." He has
long advocated for permanent wilderness protection of the 1002
area and he is asking them to do so by voting no on HJR 5.
MR. STRASENBURGH said it is more than personal; he is also very
supportive of the Gwich'in people and the importance of the
caribou to their subsistence and culture. He said the Arctic
Refuge is, "a coherent whole, as true a wilderness as there is
on this planet, Earth, and it is not possible to bring
industrial civilization to this place without destroying what it
is."
RUTH WOOD, representing herself, Talkeetna, Alaska, opposed HJR
5. She said, "The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a
treasure." It is not just an economic opportunity to dig oil out
of the ground. She has seen it and knows.
It is very misleading to talk about how many acres in the refuge
are protected, but to leave out the fact that the plan is to
open all the coastline in it. So, there will be no coastline
that is still protected. It is important for the polar bear, the
Porcupine caribou herd, and it's important for the people of
Alaska who go there to experience a part of the world that can
only be experienced there.
Further, she said there is a glut of oil and gas in the U.S. and
the world right now. ANWR shouldn't be opened unless it's an
"absolute emergency."
3:59:13 PM
BRIANNA YONKER, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed
HJR 5. She lives on Eielson Air Force Base and is a student at
the University of Alaska. She quoted from the Wilderness Act of
1964 that describes ANWR as: "where this earth and its community
of life are untrammeled by man." She said this drilling would
disrupt that community of life, and there is an ethical
obligation that supersedes any economic value that can be added
from drilling.
4:01:09 PM
MISTY NICKOLI, representing herself, Fairbanks, Alaska, opposed
HJR 5. This is a pro-industry resolution and has zero economic
benefit for Alaska for the first seven years. It threatens the
main food source of 14 rural communities. As it is, subsistence
hunting is estimated to be worth $2.5 billion whereas imported
food is valued at $1.9 billion.
The best jobs "Up North" currently are outsourced to people from
other countries and the Lower 48. Alaskans get the lower paying
jobs and are first to be laid off regardless of their education
background. "When big oil ruins our wilderness, they don't fix
it," she said, as was seen in the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
She said it is their responsibility today to serve Alaskans and
the Alaska economy, and the only way to do that is to vote "no"
on HJR 5.
4:02:48 PM
CARL PORTMAN, Deputy Director, Resourced Development Council,
Anchorage, Alaska, strongly supported HJR 5. He said the 1002
area is the most prospective area for oil and gas development in
Alaska. According to the federal Energy Information
Administration, oil and gas development in ANWR could result in
new domestic production ranging from 510,000-1.5 million
barrels/day for 12 years, with additional production for many
years following that. Such production would save the nation
billions of dollars in imported oil, create thousands of new
jobs, refill the TransAlaska pipeline (TAPS), and generate
billions of dollars in new revenues to the federal and state
treasuries.
The 1002 area is the most prospective conventional onshore
prospect in our country with an estimated 5.72-16 billion
barrels of technically recoverable oil. If opened, not one acre
of designated wilderness would be disturbed by development. With
advances in technology significantly diminishing the footprint
of development, the choice between energy production and
environmental protection doesn't have to be made.
He stated, "It is possible to develop the energy reserves inside
ANWR while directly utilizing less than 1 percent of the area.
This can be accomplished without significant disturbance to
wildlife."
MR. PORTMAN said the 1002 area of ANWR should be opened to
responsible oil and gas development. Our nation's security in
the Arctic and Alaska's economy depends on it, especially since
the Arctic OCS has been taken off the table. He said 70 percent
of Alaskans consistently support oil and gas development in the
1002 area in surveys dated as late as 2016.
He responded to the comment of a previous caller who said that
if the coastal plain were opened, all the coastal area of ANWR
would be open to development and none would be protected. This
is inaccurate, because 500,000 acres of the coastal plain east
of the 1002 area are designated "wilderness" all the way to the
Canadian border and would not be open to development.
Further, he said, some people have indicated that new energy
development is not needed in the Arctic, because of the shale
renaissance production in the Lower 48, but the Department of
Energy has indicated that shale production in the Lower 48 will
decline beginning midway through the next decade, and ANWR
production won't come on line for 10 years or longer.
4:06:32 PM
CHAIR GIESSEL thanked him and finding no further comments,
closed public testimony on HJR 5. She said it was brought to
their attention that some language needs to be removed to make
the overall resolution a bit tighter.
4:06:45 PM
SENATOR OLSON moved conceptual Amendment 1.
CHAIR GIESSEL objected for explanation purposes.
SENATOR OLSON said he collaborated with the sponsor on this
amendment, and explained that it has three parts. The first part
is on page 1, lines 2-4, that deletes "urging the U.S.
Department of Interior to recognize the private property rights
of owners of land in and adjacent to the Arctic national
Wildlife Refuge."
The second part is on page 4, line 9, after, "resources" where
"and created the Alaska Energy Authority to assist the state in"
is deleted.
The third part is on page 4, that deletes the "Further resolve"
on lines 24-29.
REPRESENTATIVE WESTLAKE said he supported the amendment and
wanted to strengthen the language for the congressional
delegation to use in Washington, D.C.
CHAIR GIESSEL removed her objection. Finding no further
objection, she announced that conceptual Amendment 1 was
adopted.
4:09:31 PM
SENATOR OLSON moved to report SCS HJR 5(AET), as amended, from
committee with individual recommendations and attached fiscal
notes. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
CHAIR GIESSEL commented that Representative Westlake had stated
before that a good-paying job is the great equalizer in our
society and that these kinds of jobs continue the vibrancy that
makes Alaska great. These are transferable skills that people
learn as they have these jobs, which mean dignity, helping make
towns and villages richer, as a result. She thanked him for this
resolution saying that multi-generations of Alaskans stand to
benefit from this.