HOUSE RESOURCES STANDING COMMITTEE April 15, 1996 5:05 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT Representative Joe Green, Co-Chairman MEMBERS ABSENT Representative William K. "Bill" Williams, Co-Chairman Representative Scott Ogan, Vice Chairman Representative Alan Austerman Representative Ramona Barnes Representative John Davies Representative Pete Kott Representative Don Long Representative Irene Nicholia COMMITTEE CALENDAR HOUSE BILL NO. 548 "An Act authorizing, approving, and ratifying the amendment of Northstar Unit oil and gas leases between the State of Alaska and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; and providing for an effective date." - HEARD AND HELD PREVIOUS ACTION BILL: HB 548 SHORT TITLE: NORTH STAR OIL & GAS LEASE PAYMENT SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION 03/28/96 3434 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S) 03/28/96 3434 (H) RESOURCES, FINANCE 03/28/96 3434 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DNR) 03/28/96 3435 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER 03/28/96 3436 (H) ATTACHMENT 04/03/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 04/10/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 04/12/96 (H) RES AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 124 04/15/96 (H) RES AT 5:00 PM CAPITOL 124 WITNESS REGISTER JACK CHENOWETH Legal Services Legislative Affairs Alaska State Legislature 130 Seward Street, Number 406 Juneau, Alaska 99801 Telephone: (907) 465-2450 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 548 JOHN T. SHIVELY, Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Department of Natural Resources 400 Willoughby Avenue Juneau, Alaska 99801-1724 Telephone: (907) 465-2400 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 548 JERRY McCUTCHEON 121 West 11th Avenue Anchorage, Alaska 99501 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 548 KENNETH A. BOYD, Director Division of Oil and Gas Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street, Suite 1380 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5948 Telephone: (907) 762-2547 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 548 Kevin Banks, Petroleum Economist Division of Oil and Gas Department of Natural Resources 3601 C Street, Suite 1380 Anchorage, Alaska 99503-5948 Telephone: (907) 762-2547 POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 548 ACTION NARRATIVE TAPE 96-56, SIDE A Number 000 CO-CHAIRMAN JOE GREEN called the House Resources Committee meeting to order at 5:05 p.m. Representatives Green was present at the call to order. This meeting was teleconferenced to Anchorage. HB 548 - NORTH STAR OIL & GAS LEASE PAYMENT CO-CHAIR GREEN said the agenda included testimony on HB 548, an act authorizing, approving, and ratifying the amendment of Northstar Unit oil and gas leases between the State of Alaska and BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.; and providing for an effective date. Number 0050 JACK CHENOWETH, Legal Services, Legislative Affairs, said he had been assigned to handle any of the drafting related to HB 548. He said he would discuss some of the points made by Assistant Attorney General James L. Baldwin's opinion, dated March 26, 1996. He said he did not have a fundamental disagreement with any of the conclusions in the opinion. He said this opinion was broken down into four parts. One part is the discussion of the authority to do what the Administration is proposing to do under existing law and Mr. Baldwin seems to believe that it would not be prudent to do so under current law and consequently recommends that something be done to amend state law and make it clear that the Administration can do what it proposes to do. Mr. Chenoweth said he has no argument with that point. Number 0148 MR. CHENOWETH referred to the issue of local or special legislation, Article 2, Section 19, the state constitution provision, and said he agreed with Mr. Baldwin's analysis in so far as the conclusion that the proposed HB 548 would probably not be found to violate the local or special act requirements under the recent cases for finding that if a matter is of statewide concern, even though it only operates within a small geographical area, the local and special legislation objection can be overcome. In Mr. Baldwin's analysis, referring to page four of the opinion, there is an acknowledgement that there is some uncertainty as far as the local and special legislation provision is concerned. Mr. Baldwin notes that the test the court devised, in measuring whether an act meets or violates the local or special legislation requirement, relates to something not too terribly different from the way the court analyzes equal protection questions or equal protection challenges using a sliding scale analysis. Mr. Baldwin cites cases, and Mr. Chenoweth said, looking at the cases, he believed this assumption was correct. Number 0204 MR. CHENOWETH said Mr. Baldwin points out, in the second paragraph on page four of the opinion, that there has not been a case involving the local or special prohibition since the unified equal protection test was adopted by the court. He said it remains to be seen how the court will apply an equal protection analysis to a statute claiming to violate Section 19 of Article 2, and Mr. Baldwin acknowledged that this is an unanswerable question. Number 0290 MR. CHENOWETH referred to Article 8, Section 17 of the state constitution, called the uniform application clause, and said it says laws and regulations governing the use or disposal of natural resources shall apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and purpose to be served by the law or regulation. Mr. Chenoweth said the uniform application clause is something that comes into play with respect to what is proposed in HB 548. He said this is because, even though the uniform application clause has only been applied with respect to fish and game matters, it seemed to him that this clause was also applicable to any resource situation. He said what is proposed, in HB 548, is a narrow approach involving only one lessee and one set of leases within a unit. He said there are other lessees in the state who potentially might be interested in the kinds of advantages that would result under a renegotiation of a lease. He said the other lessees are not a part of HB 548. Number 0405 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if he was talking about the second or third runners up to the Northstar leases or about other lessees with a net profit lease. Number 0422 MR. CHENOWETH said he was talking about other lessees with net profit leases. He said, usually when the legislature is legislating in the area where equal protection claims are raised, more often than not it is enough that the legislature's direction bears some fair and substantial relationship to what it is that they are trying to achieve. However under the uniform application clause, as he reads it and how it is being applied in several cases, the Alaska Supreme Court seems to have taken a different view and has concluded that if a claim is raised, under this clause, it is not enough that there is merely a minimal rational basis between what the legislature wants to do and how it goes about achieving that goal, but rather that there be close nexus or fit between the proposed legislation enactment and the interest sought to be served by it. He said this court standard is more difficult to reach than the normal or usual rational basis test and less difficult to reach than the strict scrutiny which occurs when a distinction is drawn due to race or color, the court derived standard involved in this situation is somewhere in between. Number 0537 MR. CHENOWETH said his concern is that there are other net profit lessees in the state, who don't see themselves being helped by HB 548, and perhaps those lessees could make the argument that they ought to be considered. He wondered that as HB 548 is being drafted, because it is only focused on the particular Northstar unit with one lessee, whether a bill has been drawn that draws a close nexus or fit between the proposed enactment and the interest sought to be served. He said he did not know if this is accurate and said he did not know if there are other net profit lessees in the state who have been reluctant to develop their leasehold interests because of some problems and would stand to benefit from a renegotiation. He said it is worthwhile asking this question to try to find out whether the Administration has sent down a bill that provides the necessary fit, the necessary relationship, in order to address this interest that they think ought to be fixed, cured or pushed along. Number 0639 MR. CHENOWETH referred to Mr. Baldwin's opinion, where it talks about the use of the equal protection test in the context of local and special analysis, and said he wondered if the court wouldn't also be facing a challenge that was grounded on the uniform application clause and wondered whether fulfilling a minimal rational basis test was enough or whether something more stringent ought be considered. Number 0655 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to another net profit lease that was profitable and asked if a renegotiation might be possible because of HB 548 or would the same set of circumstances have to apply. Number 0677 MR. CHENOWETH said he was referring to net profit leases that have not been developed or things that have been developed or can show a great hardship to the lessee. He said, as he understands it, the nature of the argument from BP is that the net profit interest is a hardship to develop the lease. He said there might be other lessees in the same circumstance and said that the legislature ought to give passing consideration to whether the provision in HB 548, currently directed at one lessee, ought to be broadened by giving the commissioner authority to allow other leases to be taken into consideration. Number 0723 CO-CHAIR GREEN, "net profits lease B over here and maybe it isn't a 79 or an 80 or so percent net profit, but it has a net profit, would there be a need to have it tailored after this if that were to come to pass or could there be discretion and could be...it could be reduced but maybe in a completely different manner. Here is where I am coming with that if I can, we have passed a law last year that allows discretion with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to modify royalties under three different categories...now that is a discretion for each...let's say they all come in because they have been shut-in...the commissioner can do one on this lease and a little different on this lease and little different yet on this lease so do they all have to be similar to pass this...what is it called, close nexus, or just the fact that there is a process." Number 0788 MR. CHENOWETH expressed concern about the fact that there are other net profit sharer lessees in the state, who for whatever reason have developed at enormous costs or may not have developed for some reason, and that these lessees are going to stand around and ask how they can be benefited. He said the legislature, in this particular case, is drawing a line in a way that does not apply equally to all persons similarly situated with reference to the subject matter and the purpose to be served by the law or regulation. He said HB 548 carves out one and does not treat others. He said, if the court should be asked to look at what HB 548 does and pass validity, he could not imagine that the uniform application clause wouldn't at least be considered. Number 0856 MR. CHENOWETH said the legislature should satisfy itself that there are no other lessees out there or there are distinguishing features suggesting that they are not similarly situated with reference to the subject matter. If you end up with only the Northstar unit leases there should be a clear indication on the record as to why the legislature must satisfy that it be these leases only. He said, if the legislature is not satisfied, then something needs to be done to hold open the possibility that other lessees, similarly situated, would have the opportunity to come in and make the same kind of representations before the commissioner. Number 0895 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if this needs to be included in law or whether or not the record would suffice. Number 0900 MR. CHENOWETH said that if you are going to leave HB 548 as it stands then the record would suffice because the Attorney General can point to the record and say that the legislature did consider this and the record shows to their satisfaction that distinctions could be drawn between this lessee in this unit versus others who might come in and raise the objection. He said if HB 548 is going to be changed there is a good reason to at least put something in the record to indicate why the legislature proposed to change the bill. He said this point might have been thoroughly discussed on the Senate side, but said it was a point that came to his mind as he reviewed HB 548. He referred to Mr. Baldwin's reference, to equal protection, and said he felt it was more than that, more than minimal relationship, but that it was a little bit tougher and more stringent in terms of how it might comply with the uniform application provision. Number 0955 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked Commissioner Shively if this issue had been addressed on the Senate side. Number 0980 JOHN T. SHIVELY, Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, said there are no other people who are similarly situated, such as having a 20 percent fixed royalty and variable royalty of over 85 percent. He said there are some other lessees with a 20 percent fixed royalty and a variable net profit royalty, one of which is BP in the Duck Island unit with some partners and another at the Point Thomson unit at 52 percent. He said DNR feels that there are some significant differences between the lessees. He said there are other net profit leases, but they were all fixed and not part of the bid variable and added that there was a different situation when the leases were bid. Number 1035 MR. CHENOWETH said he was merely bringing up this point and the legislature can develop the response on the record or however the legislature decides to handle it, but he said this is a fairly obvious question and if the requirement can met and the question can be answered it is not of concern. If you can meet that test, the close fit or nexus, you certainly should be able to survive any minimal relationship test under the lowest level of equal protection analysis that Mr. Baldwin alludes to on page four of his opinion. He said that aspect of the opinion, the local and special legislation question, probably is well answered as far as the HB 548 and the Senate companion bill, SB 318 are concerned. Number 1078 CO-CHAIR GREEN said there has been some rumors regarding litigation as a result of passage of HB 548 and asked if HB 548 would stand a better chance "to have something in the bill addressing this or do you figure that even if it does come up the fact that it could be kicked around with the legislature and passed anyway would suffice?" Number 1127 MR. CHENOWETH said HB 548 contains three or four issues which will be the basis of litigation. He said the fact that he agrees with Mr. Baldwin's opinion does not mean that someone else wouldn't want to use it to base an argument against HB 548. He said any of the points that Mr. Baldwin identifies are potential points from which an argument can be developed to imply that the legislation is invalid because it violates such things as the uniform application clause and the arguments can extend from there. He said, because of this, he feels the legislature should at least make a passing reference to the commissioner's indication that there are no other lessees who are situated in exactly the same way and that the legislature believes that there are no others, if this is true, who meet the threshold of being similarly situated so that the uniform application clause would apply. He said this issue will come up, it will be litigated and then at least the legislature will have looked at and made some sort of formal response in passing in the record then, before whatever committee or committees it is considered, it will stand for itself. Number 1202 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said he agreed that it should make the record, but said the risk belongs to BP. He said if HB 548 is found to be invalid BP would be back under net profit leases. Number 1236 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if putting something in HB 548 would cause it to act as a "catchers mitt." Number 1244 MR. CHENOWETH said the lawyers will figure out any basis for challenging HB 548. He said he merely presented this issue and said the commissioner said he could point out documentation to show that the other leases are not similarly situated. Number 1276 MR. CHENOWETH referred to the third part of Mr. Baldwin's opinion, on page five, regarding the public purpose question and said the conclusion that a case can be made, that there is adequate consideration and support of finding a direct and substantial public benefit flowing from reduction of the net profit share, is a fully defensible position. Number 1300 MR. CHENOWETH said another area of concern is the competitive bidding principles. He said Mr. Baldwin's opinion lays out the Alaska court decisions that bear upon the issue of whether a lease or a contract, that was entered into as the result of competitive bidding, may or may not be amended. In Alaska case law, essentially as Mr. Chenoweth read it, if the contract or lease is to be materially affected, then it ought not be changed. In addition, the cases cited by Mr. Baldwin are supportive of that conclusion and Mr. Chenoweth offered another case, State of Hawaii vs. Kahua Ranch, 384 p. 2d 581, dated July 1, 1963. He said the Hawaiian Supreme Court said reformation of the lease of public lands sold at public auction, pursuant to statutorily requiring notice of contents of a lease, was denied by the court. He said there have been other cases that have touched upon this in some other jurisdictions, notably in New Jersey. He said that decision seems to be the philosophy as far as federal purchasing regulations are concerned that at some point, where the change is material, it is called into question, the bid has to be cancelled out and rebid. MR. CHENOWETH said the DNR has a regulation in place covering timber in material sales, 11 AAC 71.205(b), which says amendments to the contract, timber and material sale contracts, will be made in writing and become part of the contract upon mutual agreement of the director and purchaser. However, an amendment under this subsection may not materially affect or change the meaning or intent of the contract. Number 1430 MR. CHENOWETH said there are court cases out there and said it is an obvious point of departure for someone who wants to challenge HB 548 by arguing that the change in the basic mechanics of bidding this lease is truly a material change. He said the courts may have to look long and hard to determine if they are satisfied that this leases ought not be changed and the leases ought to be adhered to as they were bid, with some minor modifications, may be necessary or the leases terminated and the area offered to rebid. Number 1450 MR. CHENOWETH referred to an editorial in the Anchorage Daily News, two weeks ago, regarding the integrity of the competitive bidding process. He clarified that he is not saying that HB 548 is wrong, but where those types of challenges have been raised in the courts in other jurisdictions, and to some extent those issues have been raised in the Alaskan Supreme Court, and the decisions seem to indicate that changes that are material will not be allowed. Number 1472 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said HB 548 is not a material change as the economics of the field must be evaluated as you stretch it out under the current lease provisions. He said, at this point, even if the state were to order BP into production the earliest that this could occur would be at the end of their current development plan, in April of 1998. He said, it could be assumed, that BP would proceed with some reasonable schedule and oil production would begin in 2002 as compared to the last quarter of 1998 as it would be under HB 548. He said when looking at the economics under the Division of Oil and Gas (DO&G) model and what happens under net profits there is virtually no difference between the two numbers. He said the state, under the current lease, has certain risks which are being reduced by making this proposal, HB 548. Number 1517 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said he would not predict what the courts would do, but said the base royalty and the other provisions remain the same and what is being changed is an exceedingly speculative part of the lease in terms of the state's ability to get a return. Number 1545 MR. CHENOWETH said he did not have a response to this, and added that he made this point only because there are cases out there. He thought there was some merit to what the commissioner has indicated and said he did not know how prepared the courts were likely to be in accepting the types of distinctions that are being made in the commissioner's argument. He referred to the case in Hawaii and said it did not give any indication that the legislature had been asked to do anything and refused, he said what occurred was the result of an action taken by their state land managing agency as something they thought they could get away with and found out they couldn't. Number 1583 MR. CHENOWETH said HB 548 has the Administration coming to the legislature for approval. He said, in Section 2(b) of HB 548, DNR is asking that the legislature provide authority, in this situation, so that the leases can be modified. He said this process might be enough for the courts to say that if DNR convinced the legislature to change it, then maybe it is another indicator that HB 548 would be allowed by the courts. He said this is an issue and questioned whether there was anything that the legislature could do to draft or prepare legislation to meet this challenge other than having on the record why these precedents, particularly the in-state precedents, ought to being used as guidance in this situation. Number 1628 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said one of the reasons why HB 548 came back to the legislature was because of his point. The Administration thought that having the branch of government that makes public policy in the state substantially strengthens the agreement listed in HB 548. He reiterated that if the legislature feels that HB 548 would be a force majeure the risk belongs to BP, although if HB 548 delayed the development there would be risk to the state, but said the state had that risk anyway. Number 1661 CO-CHAIR GREEN asked if someone wanted to take issue with this, take an injunction and delay things, would that act as a force majeure and extend that one year development agreement that BP has agreed to. Number 1675 MR. CHENOWETH said he wouldn't regard litigation as falling within a force majeure, but didn't look at the particular language. Number 1680 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said the lease agreement is by the discretion of the commissioner and said he did not know the answer to this question. He said it is the feeling of the Administration that there wouldn't be an injunction. He said there might be litigation, but it is unclear that people would ask for an injunction because all that is achieved is that it reverts back to the original lease. He said BP might chose, if litigation is filed, not to proceed and might claim force majeure but the commissioner would have to make the decision on this issue. Number 1708 CO-CHAIR GREEN said perhaps an environmental group might consider an injunction to either delay or "get lucky." Number 1719 COMMISSIONER SHIVELY said, for an environmental group to sue, an injunction does not get them much, the most that happens is that BP decides to drop the leases and the state rebids them. He said there is oil and a field can be developed. He said some people have stated that they will litigate, but said those people have been recently successful in litigating whether or not the Republican Party should or shouldn't have a closed primary. Number 1749 MR. CHENOWETH said, one other point and then he would conclude his comments, the two areas previously discussed both go to Section 2(b) of HB 548 which gives the commissioner authority to amend the Northstar leases in a particular fashion and said he now wanted to address Section 2(c) which relates to approved and ratified. He said whenever the legislature steps into retaining, for itself, the authority to approve a lease there is a chorus that comes out of the Department of Law (DOL) arguing that this violates the separation of powers. He said there are opinions that go back 15 years which support separation of powers and said it seems interesting that, in an Administration bill, the legislature is now being invited to approve and ratify a contract or a lease amendment. He wondered if the role of the legislature in HB 548 is significant enough that separation power concerns has been set aside for a time. He said he did not think anything turns on this issue as there probably won't be any change in the separation of powers chorus. There was a problem with the teleconference link. Number 1963 JERRY McCUTCHEON was next to testify via teleconference from Anchorage. He said, "BP had a DIS guy here, they refused to identify the Original Oil in Place (OOIP), personal (indiscernible) in place. They didn't give a Gas/Oil Ratio (GOR) about 4,100, they refused to disclose the amount of gas in the gas cap, the composition of the gas. How much gas was going to be flared, we don't know if the gas is being injected or where the gas would go. They did state that the degree of gravities around 43, and all I would say is well is (indiscirnible) 130 million barrels. Well, 50 square miles for 130 million barrels seems an awful lot. There was a group shoot in the late seventies and they found offshore a number of structures, 12 of which were larger than Prudhoe Bay, that of course doesn't mean there's anything in them, it just means that they're out there. We don't know if the Northstar sits on one of them or not. We apparently don't know where the 12 structures are, Mr. Green might know, but the public doesn't know and that information is old and should be readily available." Number 2033 MR. McCUTCHEON, "It seems to me that this is a very bad idea. We absolutely sack the contracting business what the state gets in bidding takes time, money, effort, you know you just don't sit (indiscernible) you got out and spend money and do your seismic work, geology work and you prepare a bid and then someone else comes along and they prepare a bid that is a little bit higher and they get the lease and then they pull their cards and sell out to somebody else and then another person comes in because of the political connections and says, hey, we like a lower price and this leaves everybody else holding the bag and pretty soon your contracting becomes absolutely meaningless to anybody, it is a lease on the inside, who is on the inside and who's got the rear and who doesn't. And that is not a way for the state of Alaska to do business and particularly not to do business where none of this information is available. Prudhoe Bay at this juncture after this many years, we have all kinds of information on Prudhoe Bay and here you have a deliberate attempt by BP not to give information out, not to tell what was going on." Number 2090 KENNETH A. BOYD, Director, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources, was next to testify via teleconference from Anchorage and said he was here with Mr. Banks. Number 2106 CO-CHAIR GREEN referred to the proprietary information of DO&G, which the legislature is not privy to, and asked him if he had any concerns that the estimates being used were reasonable, that Northstar is not on the same as a Prudhoe Bay type of field. Number 2123 MR. BOYD said DO&G has done independent analysis and that the Division view is that 130 million barrels is a reasonable estimate. He said the original oil in place was about twice that. He said the DO&G figures the upside could be as large as 160 million to 165 million and the downside could go as low as 110 million barrels. He said the 130 million estimate is certainly in the "ballpark," within the limits of the techniques available. He said you have the wells, pretty good seismic coverage and said, at the time of development, it calls for a new three dimensional program. He concluded that DO&G is in the "ballpark." Number 2144 CO-CHAIR GREEN suggested an hypothetical amount of 200 million barrels and asked, in the economic analysis, if there was a significant discrepancy between the existing net profits portion or the royalty provision in HB 548. Number 2163 MR. BOYD said some models were run with various proposed numbers and said the highest number that was run through the economic model was 180 million. KEVIN BANKS, Petroleum Economist, Division of Oil and Gas, Department of Natural Resources, was next to testify via teleconference from Anchorage. He said, in response to a question raised by Senator Halford in the Senate Resources Committee, DO&G was asked to look at a 180 million barrel case. He said, assuming that there would be very little additional capital expenditures in order to achieve that barrel number, an estimate was determined that the net profit share would be substantially higher than a base case. Number 2198 MR. BANKS said there were a couple of caveats that need to be added, such as the fact that additional capital expenditures were not included in the estimate, besides the drilling of a few new wells which might be considered a heroic assumption. He said the other thing that the estimate assumes is that full production would begin in 1999, which could be another heroic assumption as DO&G has been told that they would not begin development without supplemental royalties. He said, given these exclusions, DO&G found a fairly large difference in the divisions estimate. He said he did not have the numbers, but the estimate difference is over $550 million with the net profit shares. Number 2253 CO-CHAIR GREEN said the committee will be getting into the model and those sort of things. He asked if enough models were run to show if there is a linear or exponential increase in net profits as the ultimate recovery goes up. He said the model would not account for an increase in capital costs. Number 2276 MR. BANKS said he could not say if it is linear or exponential or if it represents a certain discontinuous function as substantially different kinds of capital expenditures have to be made to enhance the production, or the recovery, of the oil field. He said DO&G is working on a similar question for the Senate Resources Committee and said he would send the answer to the House Resources Committee. Number 2297 CO-CHAIR GREEN said if a significant increase was seen in net profits under a high recovery case, he asked if a significant increase was seen to the state under the proposal. He said, with the higher rate, there would also be per well rate increases and asked if this seen in their model. Number 2326 MR. BANKS said the state take, under the supplemental royalties, increases as the number of barrels, subject to royalty, increased. He said there would also be an impact on severance taxes as well as economic limit factors affected by these higher production rates. Number 2338 CO-CHAIR GREEN said the commissioner indicated that this was a special case were the state is trading a little less ultimate recovery for more certainty in sooner recovery and asked if there is an upside and if it was still comparable with the increased recovery or was there a divergence starting to show up. Number 2360 MR. BOYD said this would need to be done using the models which were not with Mr. Banks and asked that the question be deferred to the time that the models could be in front of them to put in those figures. CO-CHAIR GREEN said the information from the meeting today would taken and reviewed. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the House Standing Committee on Resources, the meeting was adjourned at 5:50 p.m.