[Senate Hearing 115-491]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 115-491
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-
WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
to
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE POTENTIAL FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-WILDERNESS PORTION OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE, KNOWN AS THE ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, TO RAISE
SUFFICIENT REVENUE PURSUANT TO THE SENATE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS
INCLUDED IN H. CON. RES. 71.
----------
NOVEMBER 2, 2017
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR
COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
S. Hrg. 115-491
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-
WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
to
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE POTENTIAL FOR OIL AND GAS EXPLORATION AND
DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-WILDERNESS PORTION OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE, KNOWN AS THE ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, TO RAISE
SUFFICIENT REVENUE PURSUANT TO THE SENATE RECONCILIATION INSTRUCTIONS
INCLUDED IN H. CON. RES. 71.
__________
NOVEMBER 2, 2017
__________
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
27-436 WASHINGTON : 2020
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
MIKE LEE, Utah BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
STEVE DAINES, Montana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
CORY GARDNER, Colorado JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Colin Hayes, Staff Director
Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
Kellie Donnelly, Deputy Chief Counsel
Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
Policy Director
Chuck Kleeschulte, Senior Professional Staff Member
Annie Hoefler, Professional Staff Member
Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska.... 1
Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
Washington..................................................... 7
WITNESSES
Sullivan, Hon. Dan, a U.S. Senator from Alaska................... 10
Young, Hon. Don, a U.S. Congressman from Alaska.................. 20
Walker, Hon. Bill, Governor, State of Alaska..................... 22
Mallott, Hon. Byron, Lieutenant Governor, State of Alaska........ 32
Sheehan, Greg, Principal Deputy Director, U.S. Fish & Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior....................... 41
Alexander, Sam, Tribal Member, Gwichyaa Zhee Gwich'in Tribal
Government..................................................... 46
Rexford, Matthew, Tribal Administrator, Native Village of
Kaktovik, Alaska............................................... 51
Schutt, Aaron, President and Chief Executive Officer, Doyon,
Limited........................................................ 88
Epstein, Lois N., Engineer and Arctic Program Director, The
Wilderness Society............................................. 105
Glenn, Richard K., Executive Vice President for Lands and Natural
Resources, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation................... 118
Pourchot, Pat, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the
Interior for Alaska Affairs, Anchorage......................... 128
Cronin, Dr. Matthew A., Biologist and Former Research Professor,
Animal Genetics, University of Alaska Fairbanks................ 134
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
Acton-Bond, Brandon:
Comment for the Record....................................... 443
Agnew, Shauna:
Comment for the Record....................................... 444
Agni, Steve:
Comment for the Record....................................... 445
Airport Equipment Rentals, Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 446
Alaska Chamber:
Letter for the Record........................................ 448
Alaska Forest Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 449
Alaska Miners Association:
Letter for the Record........................................ 450
Alaska State Senate:
Letter for the Record........................................ 451
Alaska Trucking Association:
Comment for the Record....................................... 455
Alexander, Sam:
Opening Statement............................................ 46
Written Testimony............................................ 48
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 320
Allison, Matti:
Letter for the Record........................................ 456
Ancel, Nadine:
Comment for the Record....................................... 457
Anderson, Jeremy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 458
Anello, Marie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 459
Arvin, Ron:
Letter for the Record........................................ 460
Avery, Janis:
Comment for the Record....................................... 461
Babcock, Tuckerman:
Letter for the Record........................................ 462
Baggen, Corella (Cory):
Letter for the Record........................................ 463
Bailey, R.V.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 464
Baker, Frank:
Comment for the Record....................................... 465
Baker, Jeff:
Comment for the Record....................................... 466
Banks, Dale:
Comment for the Record....................................... 467
Barber, Patti:
Comment for the Record....................................... 468
Barkdull, Scott A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 469
Barrows, Rebecca:
Comment for the Record....................................... 470
Barth, Bryan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 471
Basham, Charlotte:
Comment for the Record....................................... 472
Beaudreau, Lisa:
Comment for the Record....................................... 473
Beck, Ashley Joy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 474
Beck, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 475
Bell, Elaine:
Comment for the Record....................................... 477
Bell, Mike:
Comment for the Record....................................... 478
Belle, Jennifer:
Comment for the Record....................................... 479
Bell-Jones, Jenny:
Letter for the Record........................................ 480
Beltz, Randy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 481
Benkley, Joanne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 483
Bennett, Cole:
Comment for the Record....................................... 484
Bergstrom, Frank:
Letter for the Record........................................ 485
Berry, Joshua:
Letter for the Record........................................ 486
Bezenek, Clay:
Letter for the Record........................................ 487
Birch, Hon. Chris:
Letter for the Record........................................ 488
Birkenhead, Jennifer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 489
Bischoff, Valerie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 490
Bitney, John W.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 491
Bixler, Sara C.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 492
Blais-Gestrich, Maureen:
Comment for the Record....................................... 493
Bogue, Renee:
Comment for the Record....................................... 494
Boldrick, Zach:
Comment for the Record....................................... 495
Bond, Marc:
Letter for the Record........................................ 496
Boutin, Tomas:
Letter for the Record........................................ 497
Bowler, Bruce and Judy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 498
Box, Deryl:
Letter for the Record........................................ 499
Boyd, Michael:
Comment for the Record....................................... 500
Brado, Becca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 501
Branch, K.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 502
Brandenburg, Kim A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 503
Brice, Sam Robert:
Letter for the Record........................................ 505
Briggs, Christopher:
Comment for the Record....................................... 506
Brooker, Greg:
Letter for the Record........................................ 507
Brooks, Wiley:
Letter for the Record........................................ 508
Brower, Jr., Hon. Harry K.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 509
Brown, Sr., Arthur L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 511
Brown, Hamilton:
Letter for the Record........................................ 512
Brown, Linda (Lou):
Letter for the Record........................................ 513
Brown, Michelle:
Letter for the Record........................................ 514
Brown, Russ and Jennifer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 515
Brown, Thor:
Letter for the Record........................................ 516
Brown, Zach:
Letter for the Record........................................ 517
Brumfield, Gawain:
Letter for the Record........................................ 518
Brunton, John and Jackie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 519
Buch, Lauren:
Letter for the Record........................................ 520
Buhler, Brian:
Comment for the Record....................................... 521
Bumbaugh, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 522
Burcham, Janet:
Comment for the Record....................................... 523
Burton, Sean:
Comment for the Record....................................... 524
Bussell, Hon. Charlie and Vicki:
Comment for the Record....................................... 525
Buthman, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 526
Cali, Suzanne:
Comment for the Record....................................... 527
Calloway, Roger:
Letter for the Record........................................ 528
Campbell, Liz:
Comment for the Record....................................... 529
Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
Opening Statement............................................ 7
Chart titled ``2,000-Acre Oil & Gas Development Scenario--
Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain''.............................. 9
Capps, Robby:
Letter for the Record........................................ 530
Cash, Barbara L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 531
Cash, Larry S.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 532
Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
Sullivan slide titled ``Alaska North Slope Reduced
Footprint''................................................ 64
Sullivan slide titled ``Alaska As A Global Leader''.......... 66
Cassidy, Kevin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 533
Castleton, Ken:
Comment for the Record....................................... 534
Cazort, James:
Comment for the Record....................................... 535
Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America:
Letter for the Record........................................ 536
Chan, Jenny:
Comment for the Record....................................... 537
Chandler, Jr., Frank S.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 538
Chapin, Bonnie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 540
Chapman, Barbara:
Comment for the Record....................................... 541
Chenault, Hon. Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 542
Christensen, Reed B.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 544
Christenson, Gary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 545
Christenson, Robb:
Letter for the Record........................................ 546
Chugach Alaska Corporation:
Letter for the Record........................................ 547
Ciriaco, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 548
Clark, Christine:
Comment for the Record....................................... 549
Clark, Todd:
Comment for the Record....................................... 550
Clary, Glenn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 551
Classick, Jr., Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 552
Coastal Helicopters, Inc.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 553
Cohen, Susie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 554
Cole, Eric W.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 555
Collinge, John:
Comment for the Record....................................... 556
Connelly, Steve and Carol:
Letter for the Record........................................ 557
Conover, Karen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 558
Consumer Energy Alliance--AK:
Letter for the Record........................................ 559
Cook Inlet Region, Inc.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 561
Coons, Mike:
Comment for the Record....................................... 563
Cooper, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 564
Corbett, Sally:
Letter for the Record........................................ 565
Cowan, Tim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 566
Crapuchettes, Sara:
Letter for the Record........................................ 567
Crawford, Craig:
Letter for the Record........................................ 568
Crewdson, James ``Jay'':
Comment for the Record....................................... 570
Cronin, Dr. Matthew A.:
Opening Statement............................................ 134
Written Testimony............................................ 136
Crosby, Lance:
Letter for the Record........................................ 571
Crum, Joey:
Letter for the Record........................................ 572
Cruz, Dave:
Comment for the Record....................................... 573
Dacey, Florence:
Comment for the Record....................................... 574
Danby, Dr. Jennifer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 575
Dark, Alx:
Comment for the Record....................................... 576
Darsey, Jack:
Comment for the Record....................................... 577
Davis, Dr. Bonnie D.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 578
Davis, Regina:
Letter for the Record........................................ 579
Davison, Jen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 580
Debenham, Shaun T.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 581
Deering, Sydney E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 582
DeHaven, Tony:
Comment for the Record....................................... 583
DeMocker, Mary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 584
Derkevorkian, Richard:
Comment for the Record....................................... 585
DeWitt, Denny:
Comment for the Record....................................... 586
Dickerson, Julianne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 587
Dickson, Robert J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 588
Didier, Sydne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 589
Dieckgraeff, Tammy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 590
Digel, Jace R.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 591
Diltz, Hope:
Letter for the Record........................................ 592
DiPaula, Mary:
Comment for the Record....................................... 593
Dippolito, Theresa:
Comment for the Record....................................... 594
Dixon, Jr., Gary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 595
Donley, Hon. Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 596
Donley, Jamie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 597
Doyon Shareholders:
Letter for the Record to the Board of Directors of Doyon,
Limited dated 10/31/17..................................... 598
Doyon, Limited Board Resolution No. 95-45.................... 604
Dubofsky, Megan Fredericks:
Comment for the Record....................................... 605
Dunham, Diane:
Letter for the Record........................................ 606
Dunn, Lara:
Letter for the Record........................................ 607
Durham, Dana:
Letter for the Record........................................ 608
Durling, Kevin:
Comment for the Record....................................... 609
Eaton, Benjamin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 610
Eby, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 611
Edwards, Rebecca Hartman:
Letter for the Record........................................ 612
English, Candice:
Letter for the Record........................................ 613
Ensworth, Rebecca:
Comment for the Record....................................... 614
Epstein, Lois N.:
Opening Statement............................................ 105
Written Testimony............................................ 107
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 329
Erickson, Greg:
Letter for the Record........................................ 615
Erkmann, John:
Comment for the Record....................................... 616
Fabrello, Dan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 617
Fagnani, Laurie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 618
Fagnani, Matthew:
Letter for the Record........................................ 619
Fall, Michael J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 621
Fantozzi, David Scott:
Comment for the Record....................................... 623
Faulkner, Glen:
Comment for the Record....................................... 624
Fernandez, Louis:
Letter for the Record........................................ 625
Ferris, Michael S.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 626
Fink, Patricia and Siegfried:
Letter for the Record........................................ 627
Fiscus, Ron (Maureen, Ronnie, Alex, Riley):
Letter for the Record........................................ 628
Fletcher, Todd I.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 629
Flippo, Craig P.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 630
Flynn, Jenith:
Letter for the Record........................................ 631
Ford, Wyche:
Letter for the Record........................................ 632
Foster, John Wm.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 633
Fox, Parke:
Comment for the Record....................................... 634
Foy, Susan Farris:
Comment for the Record....................................... 635
Fradley, Dennis and Patricia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 636
Frasca, Cheryl:
Letter for the Record........................................ 637
Fread, Beth:
Letter for the Record........................................ 638
Freeman, Christina:
Letter for the Record........................................ 639
Freund, Kate:
Letter for the Record........................................ 640
Friends of Animals:
Letter for the Record........................................ 641
Friese, Paul:
Letter for the Record........................................ 643
Frost, Dr. John D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 645
Gabbard, Erin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 646
Gallagher, George and Peggy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 647
Garnett, Tonya:
Comment for the Record....................................... 648
Garvin, Richard H.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 649
Gath, Jessica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 650
Gee, Edward:
Letter for the Record........................................ 651
Gee, Tamara:
Letter for the Record........................................ 652
Geraghty, Michael C.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 653
Gerondale, Chad D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 654
Gies, Wade:
Letter for the Record........................................ 655
Giessel, Richard:
Letter for the Record........................................ 656
Gitzen, Rebecca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 657
Glenn, Jaci:
Letter for the Record........................................ 658
Glenn, Richard K.:
Opening Statement............................................ 118
Chart titled ``2,000-Acre Oil & Gas Development Scenario--
Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain''.............................. 120
Written Testimony............................................ 123
Glowa, Tristan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 660
Gohr, Ed:
Letter for the Record........................................ 661
Goldberg, Joe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 662
Gonnason, Dr. Jeff:
Letter for the Record........................................ 663
Gordon, Daniel:
Comment for the Record....................................... 664
Gothard, Kirk:
Letter for the Record........................................ 665
Grabacki, Stephen T.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 666
Gray, Kent:
Letter for the Record........................................ 667
(The) Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce:
Letter for the Record........................................ 668
Green, Richard:
Comment for the Record....................................... 670
Greenway, Randy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 671
Griffith, Fred and Allison:
Letter for the Record........................................ 672
Grummett, John:
Comment for the Record....................................... 673
Gurny, Nancy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 674
Haase, Don:
Letter for the Record........................................ 675
Haley, E. Phil:
Letter for the Record........................................ 676
Hall, Peter:
Comment for the Record....................................... 677
Halpern, Lisa:
Letter for the Record........................................ 678
Ham, Patricia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 679
Hanley, Alyce:
Letter for the Record........................................ 680
Hannah, Douglas:
Letter for the Record........................................ 681
Hannum, David:
Comment for the Record....................................... 682
Harkins, Edie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 683
Hart, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 684
Hartley, Joe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 685
Hartman, David H.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 686
Hartman, Linda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 687
Harvey, Garrett:
Letter for the Record........................................ 688
Hass, Mary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 689
Hasty, Shannon:
Letter for the Record........................................ 690
Hayden, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 691
Hayssen, Virginia:
Comment for the Record....................................... 692
Helfer, Rebeca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 693
Helie, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 694
Helinski, Rich J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 695
Helms, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 696
Hendrix, Tom:
Letter for the Record........................................ 698
Henri, Joe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 699
Henry, Cynthia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 700
Herrell, Michael:
Comment for the Record....................................... 701
Heston, Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 702
Hickel, Johanna ``Josie'':
Letter for the Record........................................ 703
Hickman, Steve:
Comment for the Record....................................... 704
Hill, Jim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 705
Hinton, Jennifer:
Comment for the Record....................................... 706
Hirst-Hermans, Terry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 707
Hiscock, Bruce:
Comment for the Record....................................... 708
Hollis, Harold:
Letter for the Record........................................ 709
Honowitz, Samantha:
Letter for the Record........................................ 710
Hooton, Larry:
Comment for the Record....................................... 711
Horton, Barbara A.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 712
Hosford, Kathy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 713
Howard, Terry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 714
Howdeshell, Jacob:
Letter for the Record........................................ 715
Hughes, Andy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 716
Hughes, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 717
Hughes, Richard A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 718
Hughes, Susan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 719
Humphrey, Amanda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 720
Humphrey, Lowell:
Comment for the Record....................................... 721
Hutchison, Christine:
Letter for the Record........................................ 722
Hutchison, Garry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 723
Hyman, Joan K.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 724
International Union of Operating Engineers:
Letter for the Record........................................ 725
Isaacson, Doug:
Letter for the Record........................................ 727
Iverson, Pete:
Letter for the Record........................................ 728
James, Christopher:
Letter for the Record........................................ 729
Jardell, Kevin:
Letter for the Record........................................ 730
Jeffress, Bill:
Letter for the Record........................................ 731
Jenkins, Roger:
Letter for the Record........................................ 732
Jimmerson, Mark:
Comment for the Record....................................... 733
Joans, Laura:
Comment for the Record....................................... 734
Joels, Barbara J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 735
Johnson, Dave:
Letter for the Record........................................ 736
Johnson, Judd:
Letter for the Record........................................ 737
Johnson, Lana:
Letter for the Record........................................ 738
Johnson, Mitch:
Letter for the Record........................................ 739
Jolly, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 740
Jolly, Matt:
Letter for the Record........................................ 741
Jonas, Jenna:
Statement for the Record..................................... 742
Jones, Katie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 746
Jordan, Jennifer M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 747
Jordan, R. Glen:
Letter for the Record dated 11/14/17......................... 748
Letter for the Record dated 11/15/17......................... 749
Jordan, Ronald:
Letter for the Record........................................ 750
Jumps, Satonya:
Letter for the Record........................................ 751
Jungwirth, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 752
Kahler, Shawn:
Comment for the Record....................................... 753
Kane, William D. and Carol G.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 754
Kaplan, Miranda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 755
Karnos, Nick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 756
Karraker, Mary J.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 757
Keller, Jennifer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 758
Kelly, Judy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 759
Kelly, Hon. Pete:
Letter for the Record........................................ 760
Kelty, Holly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 761
Kennedy, Chris:
Letter for the Record........................................ 762
Kennedy, Wenda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 763
Kilroy, Colleen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 764
King, Jr., Hon. Angus S.:
Chart titled ``2,000-Acre Oil & Gas Development Scenario--
Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain''.............................. 290
King, Carrie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 765
King, Janet A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 766
Kirch, Marian:
Letter for the Record........................................ 767
Kirkpatrick, Dennis M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 768
Kloc, Emily:
Letter for the Record........................................ 769
Knight, Rebecca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 770
Knutson, Doug:
Letter for the Record........................................ 771
Koon, Lori:
Comment for the Record....................................... 772
Kopp, Monica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 773
Kowalke, Randall and Karen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 774
Kreig, Lee Ann:
Letter for the Record........................................ 775
Kreig, Ray:
Letter for the Record........................................ 776
Kreitzer, Annette:
Letter for the Record........................................ 777
Kremers, Carolyn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 778
Kriel, Linda:
Letter for the Record........................................ 785
L'Heureux, Tristan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 786
La Porte, Nathan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 787
Lagerstam, Kristen:
Comment for the Record....................................... 788
Lakey, Kay:
Comment for the Record....................................... 789
Lampert, Jake:
Letter for the Record........................................ 790
Lane, Adrian and Marilyn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 791
Laner, Morgan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 792
Lash, Michael A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 793
Lasher, Fred:
Letter for the Record........................................ 794
Latto, Robert G.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 795
Lawrence, Connie Dolan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 796
Leaves, Willow:
Letter for the Record........................................ 797
Leight, William:
Letter for the Record........................................ 798
Leman, Loren:
Letter for the Record........................................ 799
Levine, Dr. David W.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 800
Lewis, Steve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 802
Liebing, Michael V.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 803
Linder, Matthew:
Letter for the Record........................................ 805
Lipsman, Josh:
Comment for the Record....................................... 806
Liston, Donn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 807
Liu, Dr. Sharon L.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 808
Lloyd, Tamara:
Letter for the Record........................................ 809
Loewenstein, Kate:
Letter for the Record........................................ 810
Long, Kodi:
Letter for the Record........................................ 811
Lovdahl, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 812
Lowry, Shawn D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 813
Lundquist, Peter and Denise:
Letter for the Record........................................ 814
MacKinnon, Neil:
Letter for the Record........................................ 815
Mallon, Teresa:
Letter for the Record........................................ 816
Mallott, Hon. Byron:
Opening Statement............................................ 32
Written Testimony............................................ 34
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 305
Malloy, Sharon:
Letter for the Record........................................ 817
Maloney, Tom:
Comment for the Record....................................... 818
Mangino, Jennifer:
Letter for the Record........................................ 819
Manuel, Joni:
Letter for the Record........................................ 820
Manuel, Paul:
Letter for the Record........................................ 821
Mao, Julie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 822
Marchetti, Joe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 823
Marinucci, Sally V.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 824
Marken, Erica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 825
Markward, Anne:
Comment for the Record....................................... 826
Markwood, Cheryl:
Comment for the Record....................................... 827
Marquiss, Lisa:
Letter for the Record........................................ 828
Marshall, Philip and Janet L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 829
Martin, Lauren:
Letter for the Record........................................ 830
Martin, Susannah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 831
Martinsons, Alex:
Letter for the Record........................................ 832
Matteson, Barry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 833
Mavis, Jodie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 834
May-Ross, Dr. Pamela:
Letter for the Record........................................ 835
McClain, Anna:
Letter for the Record........................................ 836
McCloskey, Cynthia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 837
McCormick, Carol:
Letter for the Record........................................ 838
McCormick, Casey:
Letter for the Record........................................ 839
McCrummen, Hugh D. ``Dan'':
Letter for the Record........................................ 840
McDaniel, Robert:
Comment for the Record....................................... 841
McDonnell, Dr. Andrew:
Letter for the Record........................................ 842
McElroy, Lilly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 843
McKenzie, Connie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 844
McKenzie, Lee:
Letter for the Record........................................ 845
McLean, Garrett:
Letter for the Record........................................ 846
McMullen, Craig:
Letter for the Record........................................ 847
McMullin, Vicki:
Comment for the Record....................................... 849
McQuality, Stefanie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 850
McQueary, Frank E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 852
McQueen, Curtis J.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 853
Meldrum, Samantha:
Letter for the Record........................................ 854
Melton, Matt:
Letter for the Record........................................ 856
Merrick II, A.J. ``Joey'':
Letter for the Record........................................ 858
Merrick, Keith:
Comment for the Record....................................... 859
Michelsohn, Karen Kassik:
Comment for the Record....................................... 860
Micklin, Philip:
Comment for the Record....................................... 861
Miller, Dale:
Letter for the Record........................................ 862
Miller, Greg:
Letter for the Record........................................ 863
Miller, Jeff D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 864
Miller, Michael D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 865
Millett, Hon. Charisse:
Letter for the Record........................................ 866
Mills, Andy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 868
Milton, Sharon:
Comment for the Record....................................... 869
Mitchell, Faye (and Michael Herrell):
Comment for the Record....................................... 870
Mitchell, Faye:
Comment for the Record....................................... 871
Moller, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 872
Moore, Alison:
Comment for the Record....................................... 873
Moore, Cortney:
Letter for the Record........................................ 874
Moore, Dorothy Anna:
Letter for the Record........................................ 875
Moore, Marcus:
Letter for the Record........................................ 876
Moore, Samuel A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 877
Moore, Dr. Seneca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 878
Morris, Julie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 879
Morris, Mark:
Letter for the Record........................................ 880
Mountcastle, Gene:
Letter for the Record........................................ 881
Mulholland, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 882
Mulholland, Kristi:
Letter for the Record........................................ 883
Munsell, Barry R.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 884
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
Opening Statement............................................ 1
Chart titled ``1002 Area--Small Area, Big Potential''........ 2
Chart titled ``Alaska North Slope Reduced Footprint''........ 5
Myers, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 885
Myers-Lewis, Pamela:
Letter for the Record........................................ 886
Nadel, Marcy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 887
Nees, David:
Comment for the Record....................................... 888
Nelson, Daniel:
Letter for the Record........................................ 889
Nelson, Daria:
Letter for the Record........................................ 890
Nelson, Lori:
Comment for the Record....................................... 891
Nelson, Margaret:
Letter for the Record........................................ 892
Nelson, Mark:
Letter for the Record........................................ 893
Nelson, Meghan L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 894
Nelson, Zak:
Comment for the Record....................................... 895
Neuerburg, Drew:
Letter for the Record........................................ 896
Noethlich, Tony:
Letter for the Record........................................ 897
Noling, Will:
Comment for the Record....................................... 898
O'Bannon, Allen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 899
O'Connell, Kathleen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 900
O'Connor, Christine:
Letter for the Record........................................ 901
O'Donnell, Anne Stewart:
Letter for the Record........................................ 902
Okamoto, Margaret:
Letter for the Record........................................ 903
Oliva, Stacy A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 904
Opheim, Chris R. and Kathleen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 905
Orenstein, Dr. Myrna:
Comment for the Record....................................... 906
Ota, Yuko:
Comment for the Record....................................... 907
O'Toole, Michael J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 908
Ozuru, Yasuhiro:
Letter for the Record........................................ 909
Pachak, Mark:
Letter for the Record........................................ 910
Page, Jay D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 911
Pappalardo, Tom:
Letter for the Record........................................ 912
Parsons, Carol:
Comment for the Record....................................... 913
Patrick, Judy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 914
Payne, Suzanne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 915
Pease, Mary Ann:
Letter for the Record........................................ 916
Peloza, Amy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 917
Penney, Henry:
Letter for the Record........................................ 919
Pennington, Stanley W.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 920
Perkins, Dr. Robert A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 921
Peter, Darcy L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 922
Petro, Andy and Rachael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 925
Phillips, Gail:
Letter for the Record........................................ 926
Pichler, Ron:
Letter for the Record........................................ 927
Pitcairn, Jeremy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 928
Place, Ronald:
Letter for the Record........................................ 929
Plaquet, Jim and Jan:
Statement for the Record..................................... 930
Plevin-Foust, Mimi:
Letter for the Record........................................ 932
Pohland, Don:
Letter for the Record........................................ 933
Post, Steve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 934
Pourchot, Pat:
Opening Statement............................................ 128
Written Testimony............................................ 130
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 390
Ralston, General Joseph W.:
Statement for the Record..................................... 936
Raynolds, Martha:
Letter for the Record........................................ 940
Reber, Sheldon J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 941
Reed, Ashley:
Letter for the Record........................................ 942
Reed, Everett and Carol:
Comment for the Record....................................... 943
Reese, Mark:
Letter for the Record........................................ 944
Reeve, Forrest:
Letter for the Record........................................ 945
Reeve, Renee Limoge:
Letter for the Record........................................ 946
Reh, Jesse:
Letter for the Record........................................ 947
Rexford, Matthew:
Opening Statement............................................ 51
Written Testimony............................................ 53
Rice, Donald E. ``Buck'':
Letter for the Record........................................ 948
Rich, Chris:
Letter for the Record........................................ 949
Riggs, Joe:
Letter for the Record........................................ 950
Rodkewich, Jacqueline:
Comment for the Record....................................... 951
Rodman, Bruce E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 952
Rose, Patrick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 953
Rosen, Molly:
Comment for the Record....................................... 954
Ross, Jean:
Letter for the Record........................................ 955
Ruedrich, Randy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 956
Ruge, Greg:
Letter for the Record........................................ 957
Rush, R.T.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 958
Rutkowski, Gregory:
Letter for the Record........................................ 959
Rybus, Greta:
Letter for the Record........................................ 960
Ryser, Lori:
Letter for the Record........................................ 961
Sadeh, Shamu Fenyvesi:
Comment for the Record....................................... 962
Samson, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 963
Sanfacon, Keith:
Comment for the Record....................................... 964
Santa Claus:
Letter for the Record........................................ 965
Satre, Mike, Sarah and Miriam:
Letter for the Record........................................ 966
Saunders, Cyndi:
Comment for the Record....................................... 967
Sauvageau, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 968
Schaefer, Jill:
Letter for the Record........................................ 969
Schok, Dan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 971
Schok, Jr., Genevieve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 972
Schutt, Aaron:
Opening Statement............................................ 88
Figure 1. Minimizing Footprint Through Technology............ 90
Figure 2. Penta-Lateral Well Drilled by Doyon Rig 142........ 92
Figure 3. Doyon Rig 26 Horizontal Reach...................... 94
Figure 4. Doyon Rig 141 Exploration in NPRA.................. 96
Written Testimony............................................ 98
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 325
Schutte, Gage:
Statement for the Record..................................... 973
Schutte, Kathy:
Statement for the Record..................................... 974
Schutte, Steve:
Statement for the Record..................................... 975
Schwab, Christina D.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 976
Schwartz, Eve:
Comment for the Record....................................... 977
Schwemmer, Hank:
Comment for the Record....................................... 978
Securing America's Future Energy:
Statement for the Record..................................... 979
Sedor, John M.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 983
Seitchik, Paula:
Comment for the Record....................................... 984
Seymour, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 985
Sheehan, Greg:
Opening Statement............................................ 41
Written Testimony............................................ 43
Responses to Questions for the Record........................ 312
Sheppard, Stormie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 986
Sherman, Susan:
Comment for the Record....................................... 987
Shively, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 988
Shults, Kelly J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 989
Siller, Janna Berger:
Comment for the Record....................................... 990
Silver, Keith:
Letter for the Record........................................ 991
Simpson, Paulette:
Letter for the Record........................................ 992
Simpson, William L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 993
Sims, Mary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 994
Sisters of Mercy--NY:
Letter for the Record........................................ 995
Sisters of Mercy--PA:
Letter for the Record........................................ 998
Skipper, Steven and Kim:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1000
Skoglund, David:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1001
Slivka, Alex:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1002
Sloan, Amber:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1003
Smedley II, Dennis L.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1004
Smith, Beverly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1005
Smith, Ian:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1006
Smith, Ron E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1007
Snowden, Brad:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1008
Snyder, Judy:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1009
Soffa, Laurel M.:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1010
Solie, Rick:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1011
Sorkin, Dr. Suzanne:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1012
Southeast Alaska Indigenous Transboundary Commission:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1013
Spickler, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1014
Spraggon, Wanda:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1015
Sprinkle, Sue:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1016
Sproul, Chad:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1017
Stapleton, Jr., Robert E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1018
Stedman, Carol:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1019
Steiner, Kimberly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1020
Stern, Rebecca:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1021
Stevens, William H.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1022
Stewart, Scott A.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1023
Stinson, Bob:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1024
Strait, Steve:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1025
Strand, Scott:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1026
Strange, Karen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1027
Studard, Kristen:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1028
Sullivan, Hon. Dan:
Opening Statement............................................ 10
Slide titled ``Alaska As A Global Leader''................... 12
Slide titled ``Point Thomson''............................... 13
Slide titled ``Energy Independence & Foreign Relations''..... 14
Slide titled ``New Technology''.............................. 15
Article by Clifford Krauss for The New York Times dated 10/
29/17, titled ``Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a
Foreign Policy Tool''...................................... 17
Sullivan, William:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1029
Sumpter, Jasah:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1030
Swartz, Jerram:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1031
Swoffer, Gary:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1032
Tarr, Christina:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1033
Tarver, Karen J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1034
Tauriainen, Kay:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1035
Tauriainen, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1036
Tauriainen, Ray and Sue:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1037
Teal, Louise:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1038
Thodos, Diane and Christine:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1039
Thompson, Craig:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1040
Thornton, Jessica:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1041
Tidwell, Crystal:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1042
Tilton, Hon. Cathy and Wilson, Hon. Tammie:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1043
Tornai, Mark:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1046
Treadwell, Mead:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1047
Tucker, Daniel J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1048
Tuckness, Barbara Huff:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1049
Tuckness, George:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1050
Tupou, Jacqueline:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1051
Turner, Darlene J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1052
Turner, Jeff:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1053
Udelhoven, James:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1054
Udelhoven, Sandra:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1055
United Tribes of Bristol Bay:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1056
Vance, Archie S.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1057
Vierra, Scott:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1058
Vinas, Jayson:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1060
Vincelette, Todd:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1061
Wahl, Julie K.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1063
Wald, Hannah:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1064
Walker, Hon. Bill:
Opening Statement............................................ 22
Written Testimony............................................ 24
Wall, Robert:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1065
Ward, Jason:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1066
Waterman, Nancy:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1067
Watson, Dr. Kelly:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1068
Weber, Jim:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1069
Weedman, John:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1070
Weinberg, Melodi:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1071
Wellman, Gabrielle:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1072
Wheeler, John E.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1073
White, Debbie:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1074
White, Kenneth:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1075
Wilkes, Tiffany J.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1076
Williams, Ryan:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1077
Williams, Tom:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1078
Wilson, Curt:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1079
Winkler, Kurt:
Comment for the Record....................................... 1080
Winzenburg, Clint:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1081
Wise, Karyn:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1082
Wise, Michael:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1083
Wodkowski, Mike:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1084
Wolff, Lee Ann:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1085
Yockey, Kenneth:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1086
York, Julia:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1087
Young, Hon. Don:
Opening Statement............................................ 20
Yukon, Office of the Premier:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1088
Zaruba, Thomas T.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1090
Zimmerman, Tom V.:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1091
Zins, Ryan:
Letter for the Record........................................ 1092
POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE NON-
WILDERNESS ``1002 AREA,'' OR COASTAL PLAIN, IN THE ARCTIC NATIONAL
WILDLIFE REFUGE
----------
THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2017
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m. in Room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa Murkowski,
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
come to order.
We are meeting this morning to consider opening a very
small portion of Alaska's 1002 Area to responsible energy
development to meet the $1 billion budget reconciliation
instruction that our Committee received last week.
The 1002 Area covers 1.57 million acres of land in
northeast Alaska within the non-wilderness portion--will you
bring it over here, Sean?--of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge (ANWR), and I think it is important to put this in
context in terms of the areas that we are talking about.
ANWR itself is 19 million acres--approximately the size of
South Carolina. The non-wilderness area, this 1002 Area, is 1.5
million acres--approximately the size of Delaware. The area
here is designated as wilderness, federal wilderness, 8 million
acres there.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. So when we are talking about ANWR itself, I
think it is important to recognize that there are parts of ANWR
that are designated as wilderness, and there are parts of ANWR,
the 1002 Area, that have been specifically designated for
consideration for oil and gas exploration.
So again, I want to be clear--the 1002 Area is not federal
wilderness. Congress recognized the value of ANWR when it
designated more than seven million acres as the Mollie Beattie
Wilderness--this area here. That is an area that is protected
and will not, and cannot, be touched.
The Coastal Plain, again, is separate from the wilderness
in ANWR. It is about the size of Delaware, again, in a refuge
the size of the State of South Carolina.
So again, the areas that we are talking about are
significant, and what Alaskans are asking for is to develop
just 2,000 federal acres within it, about one ten-thousandth of
ANWR.
We should also understand that if we open the 1002 Area,
the economic benefits will be substantial, our national
security will be strengthened, and the environmental impacts
will be minimal.
For starters, we will create thousands of new jobs and
those jobs will pay the types of wages that support families
and put our kids through colleges. We will also generate
substantial revenue for every level of government, tens of
billions of dollars over the life of the fields.
Now there has been some discussion out there as to whether
or not we can meet our $1 billion instruction. The answer to
that is a simple yes. And I would remind the Committee that the
first 10 years are just the start. This is the smallest part
here, of a 40-year period where responsible production raises
billions of dollars in revenues for our country every year.
The Congressional Research Service has estimated that the
Federal treasury could, depending on oil prices and the amount
of resources that are ultimately produced--and we all put that
in a caveat there--but it could raise anywhere from $48.3
billion on the low end to $296.8 billion over 30 years.
And bear in mind, that is new wealth and prosperity. New
wealth. It will not be created, not redirected or repurposed
like so much of what we deal with. Those revenues will directly
reduce our debt, while simultaneously creating the growth
conditions needed to reduce it on a greater scale.
Opening the 1002 Area will help to keep energy affordable.
Here in the Lower 48 we have somewhat forgotten what it feels
like to pay $4.00 for a gallon of gasoline. Prices are moderate
right now, we recognize that, but we also know they do not
necessarily stay that way. So we need to be taking steps to
plan for the long-term and we need to do that now, not in 10
years, to keep energy prices affordable.
A number of experts are already pointing to the warning
signs. The International Energy Agency (IEA) found that,
``Global oil supply could struggle to keep pace with demand
after 2020, risking a sharp increase in prices, unless new
projects are approved soon.''
Now some are going to argue that we are doing just fine, we
are producing more, we are even exporting some, so we can turn
our attention to other matters. But I think that that is a
mistake.
We are projected to remain a significant net importer well
into the future. And setting aside some of the shorter-term
concerns that I have just mentioned, even the more cautious
forecast from the EIA, the Energy Information Administration,
projects that oil prices will be back above $100 per barrel by
the year 2040.
I think it is also misleading to suggest that all of the
benefits of opening the 1002 Area will happen all at once or
all in the near-term. We know that is not true. We will see the
benefit for decades, not just over the ten-year budget window.
We talk a lot about where we were back in 1995, when the
Congress had passed ANWR and President Clinton at that time
vetoed the effort to open the 1002 Area. 1995. Think about
where we would have been had that action not taken place. We
would not have seen as dramatic a run-up in oil prices in the
mid-2000s. States like California would not be importing so
much of their oil from abroad, but that is exactly what has
happened as supply from Alaska has declined.
There is no question that opening the 1002 Area is
important for our state and our national economy. And we can be
just as confident that the new technologies that are in place
and are still coming online will ensure that responsible
development does not harm the environment.
Between the 1970s and today, the surface footprint of
Arctic development has decreased by about 80 percent and
several of our witnesses this morning will speak directly to
that. But put in context, what was once a 65-acre pad now takes
about 12 acres or less.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Then, below ground, the extended reach
drilling from a single pad will grow to an area of 125 square
miles by 2020. So just in a few years here, and again, we will
have Mr. Schutt speak to that, but that is an increase of more
than 4,000 percent since we began oil exploration and
production in the 1970s.
Now development in the Arctic has always raised concerns
about wildlife and the environment, and appropriately so. But I
would remind everyone here this morning, because Alaskans have
been so careful with development, fears of impacts to our
wildlife and our land have repeatedly been proven wrong. Most
of our roads are now built from ice and melt in the summertime,
leaving no impact on the tundra. Developers follow thousands of
regulatory requirements, best practices, and mitigation
measures. We inventory and we assess wildlife and we study
their habitat so that we avoid any sensitive places.
We always talk about the caribou. The Central Arctic
Caribou herd, which lives year-round in and around Prudhoe Bay,
increased from 3,000 animals in 1969, just prior to
development, to 5,000 when development began in earnest in 1974
and was at about 22,000 animals just this last year. It is now
more than seven times larger than when development began.
Now it also may surprise some to learn that we are
developing energy just outside of ANWR, at Point Thomson, a
point that my colleague Senator Sullivan knows very, very well,
but this is located on state land just two miles from the
border of the 1002 Area. That project at Point Thomson is being
carried out responsibly. It is not harming the wildlife that
cross the invisible western boundary of that Refuge, again,
defying the claims we hear about possible harm.
For over 40 years now Alaskans have repeatedly proven that
we can develop safely and responsibly and development in the
1002 Area will be no different. We will not harm the caribou
who move through the area; we will not harm the polar bears,
whose dens can be protected; the snow geese, whose nesting
areas can be safeguarded; or, any of the other birds and
wildlife that visit the Coastal Plain in the summer. We are
sensitive to the habitat in the region and care for it, and
Alaskans understand this. This is why more than 70 percent of
us have supported opening the 1002 Area to responsible
development.
We are also acutely aware that our state needs this, and we
will hear this from our Governor. Right now we have the highest
unemployment rate in the country, we have massive budget
deficits that are projected to last for quite a while, and our
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the economic backbone of our
state, is just one-quarter full.
We know full well that opening the 1002 Area is not an
immediate cure. But we also know that it is something that we
have to do today, because the benefits of development will take
time to be fully realized. It is like the old saying, we say it
a lot around here, ``The best time to plant a tree was 20 years
ago. The second-best time is now.'' We need to take that first
step today so that we can realize the benefits going forward.
I was born in Alaska. My husband and I have raised our boys
there and I hope that they lead long and healthy lives in a
place that is so beautiful and so gorgeous that it sometimes
takes your breath away.
What I know is that no one cares more for Alaska than those
of us who live and work and raise our families there. We love
our state. We respect the land. We would never risk its future
for the sake of development. But we also realize that is not
the case here.
The 1002 Area was created by a Congressional compromise. We
always knew its future would require another one, and today
Alaskans are offering just that. We are not asking to develop
all of the 1002 Area, but instead we are asking for 2,000
acres, or about one ten-thousandth of the Refuge. We have
waited nearly 40 years for the right technologies to come along
so that the footprint of development is small enough to ensure
that the environment continues to be respected and will not be
harmed.
This is not a choice between energy and the environment. We
are past that. What we have today is a great lineup of
witnesses to help our Committee understand that.
We have our entire Alaska delegation with us, our Governor,
our Congressman, our Senator, we have our Lieutenant Governor,
and we have a number of Alaskans who actually live up on the
North Slope.
I thank all of our witnesses for being here this morning. I
look forward to an excellent and informative hearing.
Senator Cantwell, I turn to you and welcome your remarks.
STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I welcome the
Governor and our colleagues to today's discussion.
But I should start this by saying this hearing is a great
departure from the strong, working relationship that Senator
Murkowski and I have set to work together on an energy agenda
that will move our country forward.
It is too bad that we are not using our resources this
morning to force our House colleagues to reconsider the very
important bill that included over 100 different priorities to
move our country forward on everything from cybersecurity to
energy efficiency.
I also do not support the makeup of today's panels and the
fact that our two colleagues who do not support opening up the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge, who have carried the bill this
legislative session and last legislative session, Senator
Markey and Senator Bennet, were not allowed to be part of this
panel.
I also believe that we should have had more witnesses from
Indian Country that represent not just the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act Corporations. Yes, corporations are charged with
economic development, but individual tribal members as we have
seen throughout Alaska and throughout the United States of
America do not support this kind of development because they
believe in the wildlife nature that God has given us, and that
we are stewards of Mother Earth. So I thank them for that. I
thank them for their strong spiritual beliefs--thank you.
We are here today because someone has come up with a
ludicrous idea that we can pass a tax reform bill that raises
the deficit, increases our taxes, and that we will take a
sliver out of a wildlife refuge to do it. I almost want to call
this ``Caribou for Millionaires'' because it is the most
ridiculous idea I have ever heard as it relates to meeting the
tax reform agenda.
So no, I do not like the setup of these three panels. I am
always glad to hear from the Governor and I am always glad to
hear from our colleagues, but our other colleagues should have
had their voices heard and Indian Country should have been
better represented.
We have no bill before us today. We have no bill and there
is a proposed markup for next Wednesday. When will we see that
language? When will we have any idea about this process?
I am disturbed and I could go in a direction of saying that
we don't have to worry because some of the press reports are,
from Bloomberg News and others, that ``The Coastal Arctic
Refuge does not have any promising oil-bearing rock
formations,'' a former BP petroleum analyst said, ``There is
not great interest in developing the Arctic Wildlife Refuge,''
and ``There are safer bets.'' So one could have the attitude
that there are, particularly with the Trump Administration's
desire--I am not sure where in the United States of America
they do not want to drill. But with their 1.7 billion acres
they want on the Outer Continental Shelf and many other places
in America, I find it hard to believe that there will be the
economic incentive to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. But
why put a big X on top of something that has been so unique to
the United States of America?
When I recently researched why we got to this point and
heard some of the first people that made their case to the
Eisenhower Administration, quoting from their reports, ``We all
knew that it must be preserved as an original fragment of our
past. The last opportunity to protect part of this continent as
it once was.'' Why? Because as other people said, ``It was a
spiritual place, an Arctic Wildlife Refuge.'' The fact that
they also said it was an area that had been left undisturbed by
man, that it was the last laboratory in which plants, animals
and where they live, as they have always lived, is preserved.
So this is why we got to this point, and this is what is unique
about it, and this is why, from the Eisenhower Administration
to today, we have fought to protect it.
Is Alaska's economy a great concern to us as a nation? Yes.
Do we in the Pacific Northwest--I think one of the first things
I said to the Chairwoman when we started a discussion is, let's
talk about why the natural gas pipeline in Alaska hasn't been
built because it has a bigger economic impact than this.
So there are issues in which we need to be mindful about
the energy economy moving forward, but this idea is not new and
it is not better. There is nothing that has changed here. There
is no new science that says we do not have to worry about this
wildlife and there is no new science that says that the oil
development will take up a smaller footprint.
This map that we will get to everyone basically shows that
the development will take up a significant portion of the
Refuge, the 800-mile-long Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 219 miles of
power transmission lines and so on and so forth.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cantwell. So the notion that wildlife can exist in
this unique environment in the same way with this development
is just wrong.
I look forward to hearing from Secretary Perry on this,
because I sent him a letter yesterday asking him how they can
exist together. We will look forward to seeing how he answers
that.
I also point out that the uniqueness of this area has led
to an international agreement. The caribou population is so
unique, so specific, and so special that we have entered into
an agreement with Canada on it. That is because they want to
protect this population of caribou as well.
The notion that we should move forward on a wrongheaded
idea because all of a sudden people want some revenue for a tax
bill and move forward today on something when we don't even
know what we are moving forward on in language, is just not the
way I think we should be proceeding.
I hope that we will have a chance, our colleagues, to ask
our witnesses questions about this, but be assured that even
though we do not agree with this process or the process of
trying to get 51 votes to change the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, we are never stopping. We are never stopping in trying
to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and its
uniqueness and working with the indigenous people who also
support that idea.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
We have several panels this morning and I appreciate not
only our delegation being here but all the Alaskans and the
visitors that have joined us this morning.
A very distinguished panel will be led off by our colleague
here, Senator Sullivan. He will be followed by the Congressman
for all Alaska, Congressman Young, who has represented us in
the House of Representatives for 45 years, going on 46. And the
panel will be rounded out by our Governor. Governor Walker has
been in office now for three years, is a life-long resident and
has great leadership. I appreciate you being here as well,
Governor.
Senator King.
Senator King. And an Independent, Senator.
The Chairman. That is true. He is an Independent. Okay, we
do not talk about the political affiliations here of anybody--
--
[Laughter.]
----but that is noted for the record.
Senator Sullivan, if you would like to lead off with the
welcome, please.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAN SULLIVAN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA
Senator Sullivan. Well, thank you, Chairman Murkowski,
Ranking Member Cantwell, all of my colleagues, for the
opportunity to say a few words on this very important issue for
our country.
Now many in this room have claimed to be protectors of
Alaska's environment. But with all due respect to my colleagues
here today, there are three people in Congress who care more
about Alaska's environment than anyone else in the entire body:
Senator Murkowski, Congressman Young, and myself.
The fundamental disconnect in the discussion of the 1002
Area is that the debate has not kept up with Alaska's high
standards, the highest in the world, and I'll talk about that
and advancements in technology. So with all due respect to the
Ranking Member, a lot has changed, a lot has changed.
Responsibly developing the 1002 Area is truly a win-win-win
for our country: it will create jobs, it will help grow the
economy, increase energy security for Americans and, very
importantly, it will help protect the global environment and
strengthen our national security. It is these last two points I
would like to emphasize in my remarks this morning.
Madam Chair, as you know, Alaska has the highest
environmental standards regarding responsible Arctic resource
development of any place in the world. I was in charge of these
standards as Alaska's Commissioner of the Department of Natural
Resources, and I can tell you, whether it is what we call ``no
impact'' exploration or specific requirements related to our
incredible species like the polar bear or caribou, or mandating
use of the best available technology, we have a 50-year record
of responsible resource development in our state.
Let me just give you one example of ``no impact''
exploration. As the Chair noted, on the North Slope of Alaska
we only allow for exploration activities during the winter
months. Companies are required to build ice roads across the
tundra, ice pads where they put their equipment and drill rigs,
and you can see examples in some of the slides I've provided,
and they have to leave before the winter ends.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. The ice pads and roads literally melt and
have zero impact on the tundra. The only thing left is a small
capped well and that is just one example of Alaska's very high,
mandated standards.
As the Chair pointed out, we have used these standards,
very recently, in the past four years on the Coastal Plain in
the same ecosystem of the 1002 Area that is being debated right
now with the development of the Point Thomson project. There is
a slide that you can take a look at. See how close that is to
the 1002 Area. There was literally minimal impact or no impact
on the environment and wildlife. The footprint, as you can see
from the slides, is very, very small and it is producing energy
right now.
Madam Chair, here is the big issue that those in Congress
who want to shut down resource development in Alaska never
acknowledge. When you disallow investment in Alaska, the place
with the highest standards on the environment in the world, you
do not end up protecting the global environment. What you do is
you end up driving capital and investment to jurisdictions with
much less environmental standards or, in some cases, no
environmental standards--countries like Nigeria and Venezuela
and Iran and Russia, many of which are also our geo-political
foes.
This brings me to my second point, producing more energy
responsibly--oil, natural gas, renewables--and making the
United States, again, the world's energy superpower will
dramatically strengthen our national security.
As some of you know, I served in the Marine Corps for 24
years. I have also served as a U.S. Assistant Secretary of
State, whose portfolio included energy security issues, global
energy security issues, and I have seen how energy can be used
as a tool for good, productive diplomacy but also can be used
for troublesome power grabs by our nation's foes.
We do not have to import energy. When we do not have to
import energy from countries that do not like us or, better
yet, when we can export American energy to our allies like
Japan or Korea or even to countries like China, this helps our
national security and foreign policy.
I sit on the Armed Services Committee, and we have heard
from military and civilian leaders from our country, Democrats
and Republicans, from Secretary Ash Carter to Secretary Mattis,
consistently state that producing more energy strengthens our
national security. And I know my friends, Senator King and
Senator Hirono, have heard these comments consistently on the
Armed Services Committee as well. But it is not just American
officials who recognize this, the Russians know this as well.
Madam Chair, I would like to submit for the record a recent
New York Times article, just from a few days ago, October 29,
titled, ``Russia Uses Its Oil Giant, Rosneft, as a Foreign
Policy Tool.''
The Chairman. We will include that as part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Sullivan. The first sentence of that story reads,
``Russia is increasingly wielding oil as a geopolitical tool
spreading its influence around the world and challenging the
interests of the United States.''
Let me end with an anecdote of a meeting I was just in last
year at the Halifax International Security Forum with Senator
McCain. We were meeting with a senior level, Russian dissident
and we asked him at the end of the meeting, ``What more can we
do as a country to push back against the Putin regime?'' He
looked at us and said, ``The number one thing you can do, the
number one thing you can do, is produce more American energy.''
Opening the 1002 Area using the highest environmental
standards in the world and the most advanced technology will
produce more American energy for the betterment of our country.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sullivan.
Congressman Young, you have been through a few ANWR
debates. We welcome your comments this morning.
STATEMENT OF HON. DON YOUNG,
U.S. CONGRESSMAN FROM ALASKA
Representative Young. Are you sure of that?
Madam Chair, thank you for having this hearing, and Ranking
Member Cantwell and the rest of the members of the Senate, I
don't feel too comfortable on the Senate side. I need a
flashlight most of the time because sometimes it's pretty dark
over here.
I am one of the few people, there's only one left in the
Congress, that went through this battle 45 years ago, actually
42 years ago. Now this 1002 Area, I have to go through the
history of it, was created by Senator Jackson, Senator
Magnuson, and Senator Stevens when the Senators were really
knowledgeable about what goes on. We recognized this area at
that time and about the valuable oil and why we had the 1002
Area.
As you mentioned, I believe the ANWR is about 19 million
acres of land. The 1002 footprint will probably be--I can't
really say what size it is. But I represent Alaska. [Inks a dot
on his nose.] You see anything different with my nose right
now? This is--I am Alaska--one tenth of one tenth a percent
that we're talking about disturbance.
The map that the Ranking Member showed was actually drawn
up by the Sierra Club. That bothers me. That's old information.
This little dot on my nose, I weigh 225 pounds, and this
little dot is what we're talking about, the 1002 Area. It has
the potential of probably around--early estimates were 10
billion barrels, now the estimates are probably around 20
billion barrels of oil.
Senator Sullivan brought it up, this is an issue of
national security, national security. It is the one weapon
Russia is wielding. We can have the security for the nation as
a whole.
And I was interested to hear about the caribou. You're
going to hear a lot of nonsense stories later on in the day.
Interested in Canada? The Ambassador sent out a letter
about it opposing ANWR. Did we say anything when they drilled
270 wells right in the area for the caribou? Two hundred
seventy wells were drilled in this caribou herd's area where
they cross every year. They built a 400-mile road right across
the caribou area too. Did we say anything then?
This is not about--it's not about the environment or the
caribou, it's about economics.
I'm ashamed of Canada right now because they're wielding an
emotional issue that most people don't know what they're
talking about nor have they been there, nor seen it, or
understand the caribou herd.
That's one thing that bothers me probably the most of all
about the legislative process. What used to be, as I mentioned,
Warren Magnuson and Senator Jackson worked together, when the
states were affected we didn't get involved in the shipyards
and certain members' districts about how they were mis-
manufacturing a ship. We didn't do that. But we have people
going and saying this is a great environmental area. Maybe I'll
find out how many of you have gone up there from the Senate
side.
But let's think about national security. I run every two
years--I'm not one of you guys, every six years--and I've
supported this and fought for it 13 times. Thirteen times I've
moved it out of the House and it has died on the Senate side,
all but once, and President Clinton vetoed it because he said
it wouldn't relieve the embargo we had that quickly.
But think about that a moment. If we are to be energy
sufficient, to control the international incidences that can be
faced, we need ANWR. The Congress recognized it when we passed
the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
Scoop Jackson, Warren Magnuson, Mo Udall, and John Seiberling
all agreed to this provision because they knew the value of
that oil and the value to this nation.
Now we're fighting the same battle again because of the
ignorance and misinformation from those that wouldst not have
any resources developed at all, not only in Alaska, we're easy
to pick on because of the three-person delegation, but the
nation as a whole to make us less strong, to make us a second-
rate nation. That's what a lot of you wish to do.
Now, as a House member, I'm going to pass this again and I
hope you have the courage to do what's right for this nation--
what's good for Alaska, what's good for the nation, and good
for all the people in the future.
Madam Chairman, I do thank you for having this hearing. And
I will remember and remind you, look at that little blue dot on
my nose. That is the 1002 Area.
I don't think it changed my appearance very much because
the Coastal Plain is not that pristine area you see in the
propaganda that's purveyed by all the environmental groups.
It's a flat terrain that, in fact, was set aside by this
Congress and the Washington Senators for the development, not
the preservation.
I yield.
The Chairman. Thank you, Congressman. Thank you for being
here.
Governor Walker, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BILL WALKER, GOVERNOR,
STATE OF ALASKA
Governor Walker. Good morning, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking
Member Cantwell. Thank you for this opportunity to speak today.
I am the Governor of Alaska. I am non-partisan. I am--I
have a goal as the Governor that future generations will be
able to have the same benefits growing up in Alaska that I had
growing up in Alaska. Born in the territory--Lieutenant
Governor Mallott, also born in the territory--we've seen many
changes in our state and many for the good.
Alaska is different. Resource development is in our DNA.
We've done that long before statehood. We'll continue to do
that. That's how we earn--it was 90 percent of our income--now
70 percent of our income from resource development. We've done
it for a long time. We do it right. We're careful in what we
do. We're very vigilant of the environment.
I remember well when we became a state. It was a day we
celebrated. We made a--the deal we made was the Statehood
Compact that said that Alaska, we cannot sell the resources in
the ground. We have to live off of them. We have to live off
the royalties of them. That's how we fund our state. That was
the deal then. We accepted that deal. But what we didn't
understand and didn't realize is that we may not be able to
have access to resources responsibly developed, to live off
those resources. That was the deal. All I'm asking for is that
we get the deal that we made in 1959 under the Statehood
Compact.
The great compromise that was made under ANILCA was that
the 1002 was set aside for future development. That's what the
deal was. All we're asking for is the benefit of the deal that
was made long ago.
This has become something that I have lived with as an
Alaskan resident all my life, and now I'm dealing with it as
the Governor of Alaska in many ways which I'll get to.
The Trans-Alaska oil pipeline. The only thing wrong with
the oil pipeline is it's three-quarters empty. Three-quarters
empty sitting next to, miles away, from the most prolific area
of hydrocarbons you can imagine, ten billion barrels.
You know, this is not about money. This is not about who
gets what money in Alaska. This is about a future. This is
about an economy. This is about the young people that want a
decent education.
I want to thank the Committee members that came into a
field hearing in Bethel and went on to a location in
Oscarville. You saw a part of Alaska that many have not seen,
and I thank you very much for doing that. I'm a big believer in
seeing first-hand what Alaska looks like.
We are a vast state, as we all know. We have, we own, as
the State of Alaska, 242 airports. The reason we do that is
because 80 percent of our communities do not have roads. When
we talk about infrastructure, upgrading infrastructure, we
don't have enough infrastructure to upgrade.
You know, I sat in a listening circle in Utqiagvik a few
years back and one of the elders said to me, he said--I was not
Governor--he said, ``Mr. Walker, my goal as a grandfather is to
see one of my grandchildren flush a toilet in their village.''
The infrastructure that we need needs to be paid for out of
the, with the resources. That was the deal we made with
Congress when we became a state. We need the benefits of that
bargain, and we need it now.
As I came into office it was a $1.6 billion deficit that
quickly drew to $3.7 billion deficit per year. I've had to do
things I hope no future Governor ever has to do. We've had to
make some very, very difficult decisions. I've had to say no to
some very good requests for help for funding. We have had to
close facilities across the state, lay off thousands of people.
We have reduced the budget by $1.7 billion. That's a tough
thing to do in a couple years. That hurts.
Public safety. Alaskans don't feel safe right now, because
we've gone too far in that direction. We're having a special
session, right now as we speak, to bring that safety back.
I signed recently, earlier this week, a climate change
administrative order. We have stood up a climate change team.
You know, we address both in Alaska. We are looking at climate
change. Climate change has impacted Alaska. There's no question
about it. We're looking at having to relocate as many as 12 of
our villages. I've been to Kivalina. I've seen that island
becoming a smaller island, but we cannot do it without the
resources, the financial resources to do it. I don't see it
coming from Washington to relocate 12 villages. So we need to
look at how can we bring in the revenue. The only way we can do
it is to live off our resources.
Alaska is unique that the beauty above ground is
unparalleled. The beauty below the ground is unparalleled as
well. The beauty below the ground is our resources that we need
to develop responsibly.
As a Governor, I can tell you that the support in the
Alaska legislature has been 90 percent. Last year was the last
resolution passed, 90 percent in support of this. Please,
please, let us develop our resources responsibly so we can fund
our state. We can make Alaskans feel safe. We can fund our
education, fund our health services. Our health services are
the highest in the nation by multiples. Please let us have the
benefit of the bargain that we made in 1959 with this body.
Thank you very much for your time today.
[The prepared statement of Governor Walker follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Governor, Senator, Congressman, thank you
for, not only your testimony here this morning, but putting it
into perspective from a historical perspective, from a defense
perspective, from a resource perspective. It adds great value
to the conversation, and we certainly appreciate it.
I know, Congressman, it is a long way over to the House
side, so we will let you get back as we move to our second
panel, but I want to thank each of you.
Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair, could I----
Representative Young. Thank you, Madam Chair, but I'm glad
to see so many of my colleagues up there on this side, all
served with me.
The Chairman. It is not so bad on the Senate side.
Representative Young. Everybody but Abraham Lincoln served
with me----
[Laughter.]
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair, could I ask the Governor a
quick question?
The Chairman. We were not prepared to do questions, but if
it is very quick, I think we can get to it.
Senator Cantwell. We don't get a chance to talk to him that
often and certainly appreciate chances that we do.
The Chairman. Certainly.
Senator Cantwell. Part of this idea is traveling with a
package of legislation moving through the House that gets rid
of our local sales deductions. Washington and Alaska are unique
in that we don't have an income tax and we get to deduct.
Are you supportive of that concept? In addition, there are
some who thought that they would package this legislation up
with another try at health care where they would go back to
block granting Medicaid. Are you supportive of those concepts
as part of a package just to get ANWR opened up?
Governor Walker. Senator Cantwell, I have certainly looked
at the package and I will evaluate the package in its entirety.
I've not been through it as thorough as I'd like to because
I've been getting ready for this hearing today, obviously.
You know, we look at that as us, as a part of that, part of
the solution on the deficit, revenues from Alaska because the
royalties will be shared equally between the Federal Government
and the State of Alaska. So we see that, certainly, as if
there's interest in reducing the federal deficit, I'm certainly
interested in reducing the state deficit. That's what my focus
is today.
Senator Cantwell. Well, I would--we will get you
information, but our analysis is that Alaskans will pay about a
$1,100 to $1,400 tax increase and individuals a $900 increase
under that sales tax deduction idea.
I think it is a bad idea for our state and your state and,
certainly, I hope no one around here takes the bait on block
granting Medicaid just to open up ANWR.
Thank you for being here, Governor.
Governor Walker. We will do all we can to open up ANWR.
Thank you.
Senator Cassidy. Madam Chair, just for point of fact.
The Chairman. Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Health care reform is not part of this.
Block granting Medicaid is not part of this. It can be a
disinformation campaign put out there to obscure the truth. We
will come back to health care reform, but that should not be
spoken of here as if it is germane to the argument. That is
misleading to the American people.
The Chairman. We do have somewhat limited jurisdiction here
in the Energy Committee. Our instruction is to find $1 billion,
and as we mentioned repeatedly, we have that opportunity within
the 1002 Area of Alaska.
Governor, Senator, Congressman, thank you for being here
this morning.
Let's call up the second panel, please. As you are getting
seated, I will provide brief introductions.
We have heard from our Governor, Governor Walker. His
Lieutenant Governor and partner is our Lieutenant Governor,
Byron Mallott. The Lieutenant Governor is a leader of great
renown in our state, an Alaskan Native leader hailing from
Yakutat, and has had an opportunity to appear before our
Committee on numerous occasions. We welcome him back.
His testimony will be followed by Mr. Greg Sheehan. Greg is
the Principal Deputy Director for the Fish and Wildlife Service
at the Department of the Interior. It is good to have you
before the Committee.
Mr. Samuel Alexander has joined us, and we welcome him as a
Tribal Member from the Gwich'in Tribal Government. Thank you
for being here this morning and traveling such a long distance.
Mr. Matthew Rexford is the Tribal Administrator in the
Native Village of Kaktovik, the one community, the one village
within the 1002 Area. It is good to have you here, Matthew.
Lieutenant Governor, if you would like to lead off this
morning.
We have asked you to try to limit your comments to about
five minutes. Your full statements will be incorporated as part
of the record. After the conclusion of your testimony, we will
have an opportunity to ask specific questions of each of you.
Lieutenant Governor, thank you again for traveling the long
distance and, again, for being before the Committee. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. BYRON MALLOTT, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, STATE OF
ALASKA
Lieutenant Governor Mallott. Thank you, Madam Chairman,
Ranking Member Cantwell, members of the Committee.
The statement of Governor Walker in the record details the
reasons, clearly, that the State of Alaska supports the issue
before the Committee: that the need for development is clear,
that the need for the revenue is clear, that the availability
of revenue should development take place, will be real.
I want to focus my remarks, briefly, on the history of, as
also has been spoken to, the ANWR issue.
I was here as a young staffer during the development of the
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), ANILCA, and
ultimately the federal classifications in Alaska flowed from
ANCSA.
In section (d)(2) of that Act there were bargains made that
were made very clear to Alaska which from time to time I had
the opportunity to help develop and which, in practice, I saw
go away. In my home village of Yakutat, I saw preserve areas
created in the St. Elias National Park in which we were
promised, as Native residents, as Native subsistence users, as
folks who lived in that area for centuries, were promised that
we could use that area into the future. They were carved out
for that purpose. And I saw camps that my family owned and
others in our community used for generations, burned down by
the National Park Service, regardless of what had been promised
to us by this Congress.
I see in ANWR, the 1002 Area being an area in which the
Congress made a promise to Alaska and to our country that we
would develop those resources should they be able to be done
safely, should they meet the market tests, should they be able
to be brought to market.
We see a complete infrastructure on the North Slope of our
state with a pipeline to market. As the Governor said, that is
now at only 25 percent of capacity. We see Point Thomson
literally on the border of the 1002 Area with the
infrastructure to allow the minimal impact in the 1002 Area for
exploration and even development made possible without any
further significant impact on the environment.
We see the ability to deal with our national security
requirements which Alaska is very concerned about as we look to
certain neighbors of our state, our unique global national
security location.
We see the need for our people. Alaska is the one state
that makes use of our fish and game and plant resources as the
highest priority for food security among all the uses of our
resources. It's called subsistence. It is our highest public
policy use.
And as resources become scarce, as they cycle through the
life cycles of resources, we make sure that our people who
depend on those resources for their livelihood, for their life
ways, for food security, are the ones that have the ultimate
access to those resources. No other state does that.
My wife, my children are Athabascan. They're Koyukon, not
Gwich'in, but I came to this office largely on the basis that I
have fought for my entire life, the life ways, the desire, the
aspirations of Alaska's native peoples and I will continue to
do so with every breath that I have.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mallott follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
Mr. Sheehan, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF GREG SHEEHAN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH
& WILDLIFE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you.
Thank you, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and
members of the Committee, for the opportunity to present the
Department of the Interior's testimony on resource development
in Alaska's 1002 Area. The 1002 Area is contained within the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I am Greg Sheehan, Principal Deputy Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. I've spoken to many people about
this issue including our dedicated and highly professional
staff in Alaska. I appreciate the passion that surrounds every
aspect of this issue.
The debate before us is a significant policy question that
Congress anticipated decades ago and one we are addressing
today. The roots of this hearing date back to 1980 when the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, was
signed into law. That law expanded the existing Arctic National
Wildlife Range to 19.3 million acres and renamed it the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
ANILCA made great strides to enhance long-term conservation
of fish and wildlife resources in the Refuge. The law also set
aside a part of the Refuge, the 1002 Area, for potential
development of oil and gas reserves.
ANILCA designated eight million acres of the original range
as wilderness requiring the area to be managed in accordance
with the Wilderness Act.
ANILCA also added the Refuge purposes including
conservation of fish and wildlife populations, fulfilment of
international agreements, providing for continued subsistence
uses by rural residents, and ensuring water quality and
quantity within the Refuge, as well as defining the 1002 Area
within the Refuge.
Section 1002 of ANILCA provides for the continuing
assessment of the fish and wildlife resources of the Coastal
Plain of the Arctic Refuge. It also provides for the analysis
of the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development and
production and authorizes exploratory activity within the
Coastal Plain. Research, observation, and exploratory
activities have been occurring on an ongoing basis since the
passage of ANILCA.
In section 1003 of ANILCA, Congress statutorily deferred a
decision regarding future management of the 1.5 million area
Coastal Plain in recognition of the area's natural resource
potential. Specifically, section 1003 states, ``. . . no
leasing or other development leading to production of oil and
gas . . . shall be undertaken until authorized by an Act of
Congress.''
Since the passage of ANILCA, a number of key steps were
taken by the Department related to the 1002 Area's unique
status. In an assessment completed and sent to Congress in
1987, the Secretary of the Interior recommended that Congress
consider leasing the 1002 Area for oil and gas. Since 1987, the
U.S. Geological Survey has conducted a number of assessments of
the resources in the 1002 Area. Their most recent economic
analysis, published in 2009, determined that there is a mean
estimate of 10.3 billion barrels of recoverable oil with 80 to
90 percent of that volume being economically recoverable at $42
per barrel. Consistent with ANILCA, the services continued to
inventory, monitor, and assess the fish, wildlife, and natural
resources within the 1002 Area so that current data is
available to inform future activity.
In 1988, the Arctic Refuge's initial Comprehensive
Conservation Plan recognized the Coastal Plain as a critical
calving area for the Porcupine Caribou herd which is an
important subsistence use for Alaska Native peoples. Other
important wildlife species including polar bear, migratory
birds, and several fish species, inhabit the 1002 Area. At the
Fish and Wildlife Service we're committed to ensuring the
health of all species as Congress provides direction on future
uses of this area.
Last spring, Secretary Zinke visited the North Slope with
Chairman Murkowski and a bipartisan Senate delegation. He
signed a Secretarial Order that requires the U.S. Geological
Survey to update its resource assessment for the 1002 Area.
This includes collection and consideration of new geological
and geophysical data as well as the potential for reprocessing
existing data. The Secretarial Order does not modify any
environmental or regulatory requirements for energy
development. This evaluation is consistent with the scope and
intent of ANILCA and will provide the Department's
understanding of resources within the 1002 Area.
The Administration's FY'18 budget proposes oil and gas
leasing in the 1002 Area, and we support Congress' effort to
open the area for production. If leasing is authorized by
Congress, the Administration believes it will bolster our
nation's energy independence and national security, provide
economic opportunity for Alaskans, and provide much needed
revenue to both the State of Alaska and the Federal Government.
Should that authorization be enacted, the Department will
follow applicable environmental review requirements in the law
to ensure that development of the area is conducted
responsibly.
Chairman Murkowski, I appreciate the opportunity to testify
on behalf of the Department on this issue and look forward to
answering any questions you and the members of the Committee
may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheehan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sheehan, for being here on
behalf of the Department.
Mr. Alexander, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF SAM ALEXANDER, TRIBAL MEMBER, GWICHYAA ZHEE
GWICH'IN TRIBAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. Alexander. Vanh gwinzii, Shoozhri' Sam Alexander
oozhii, Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ih5ifif, gaa Tanan gwihch'ii.
Shiyeghan naifif Clarence ts'a' Ginny Alexander gaavoozhri',
Gwichyaa Zhee gwats'an ginlifif.
Good morning, my name is Sam Alexander. I am from Fort
Yukon, Alaska, but I live in Fairbanks. My parents are Clarence
and Ginny Alexander from Fort Yukon.
Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell, and fellow
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak with you about the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Today I am here to talk with you about why my people, the
Gwich'in Nation, adamantly oppose the opening of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge. As a graduate of West Point and as a
prior U.S. Army Special Forces Officer, my people have asked me
to speak because I have walked in two worlds: your world and
the Gwich'in world.
So why do we oppose the opening of the Refuge to drilling?
At the heart of the issue is freedom. The freedom for us to
continue to exist as indigenous people, to exist as Gwich'in.
What does it mean to be Gwich'in? The word Gwich'in means
people of a place and for tens of thousands of years our place
has been the land now known as Northeastern Alaska and Western
Canada. To be Gwich'in is to be connected to the land. To be
Gwich'in is to believe that the land and the animals on it are
owed our deepest respect. In that regard, it is our duty as
Gwich'in to protect the land and animals. We as Gwich'in see
the desire to open up the Refuge as an attack on us and on the
Porcupine Caribou herd on which we depend.
Like many Gwich'in, I served in the U.S. military. As a
Green Beret, I deployed to Iraq to ``free the oppressed.''
Little did I realize that I'd come home to find my own people's
freedom under attack.
When we advocate for our traditional ways, we are sometimes
viewed with derision, as if we were trying to fight the
unstoppable advance of ``progress.'' But we take the long view
and we embrace our traditional ways because they have served us
well for millennia.
Even people down here have started to embrace our ways. You
see it in renewed interest in diets free of processed food,
what we would call our traditional diet.
Science now tells us that walking amongst the natural world
is good for your brain. You don't have to tell a Gwich'in
person that. In fact, when someone is looking unhealthy, we say
``Nanakat gwats'i'hindii.'' Go to your land. We say that
because we know that the land will heal you.
The land is essential to our way of life; it provides us
sustenance and we view it as sacred. The caribou come from a
place we call ``Izhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit,'' the sacred
place where life begins, and these very grounds are being
threatened by oil development. A study by the National Research
Council outlines how drilling on the North Slope has already
disrupted the migration and behavior of caribou.
This brings us to the issue of food security. What is food
security? According to the United States Department of
Agriculture, food security means access by all people at all
times to enough food for an active, healthy life. Food
insecurity is defined as a household-level economic and social
condition of limited or uncertain access to adequate food. What
is adequate food? For Gwich'in, the only real adequate food is
food that comes from the land--caribou, moose, salmon. We have
a hard time eating your ``health food.'' As a cadet at West
Point, I tried following a ``healthy diet'' full of fruits and
vegetables and it was disastrous. I found out years later that
I couldn't eat tomatoes, apples, and a whole host of other
``healthy foods.'' Over the thousands of years of calling the
Arctic home, we had adapted to a largely animal-based diet. It
wasn't until I started eating more traditional Gwich'in food
did I start to feel healthy again.
The opening of the Refuge to oil development and subsequent
decline of the Porcupine Caribou herd will limit our access to
traditional, healthy food and push us from food security into
the realm of food insecurity. No amount of money can replicate
our healthy traditional diet. No amount of money can replicate
our ways. Tell me how replacing caribou with highly processed
foods is going to be better for us. It will not. If we had to
rely on our stores for food, we'd be looking at a steady diet
of SPAM, macaroni and cheese and other shelf-stable delicacies,
often at four or five times the price of what you find in the
Lower 48.
And to what end are you opening up the Refuge? To what end
will you destroy our way of life? You aren't addressing climate
change, which has been stressing our other food sources as well
as stressing the caribou. You aren't addressing our nation's
growing deficit; in fact, opening the Refuge represents a drop
in the bucket of our budget ills. You aren't even addressing
energy security. As a former Special Forces Officer, I fail to
see how opening the Refuge at a time when we are already a net
exporter of energy provides us any geopolitical advantage. We
are hard-pressed to understand your reasoning behind opening
the Refuge.
So I will leave you this. The late Traditional Chief Moses
Sam of Arctic Village once said when describing his upbringing
on the land, ``I was never hungry, it was a rich life.'' We
Gwich'in live a rich life. We live a rich life because of our
connection to the land and to the Porcupine Caribou herd.
Money can't buy our wealth, but the reckless pursuit of
money can take it away. And for that, we will never stop
fighting to protect the Porcupine Caribou herd and our way of
life.
Thank you for your time.
Mahsi' choo.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Alexander follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mahsi' choo. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
Mr. Rexford, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF MATTHEW REXFORD, TRIBAL ADMINISTRATOR, NATIVE
VILLAGE OF KAKTOVIK, ALASKA
Mr. Rexford. Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Cantwell,
members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to speak
to you today.
My name is Matthew Rexford, and I serve as the Tribal
Administrator for the Native Village of Kaktovik (NVK). I am
also the President of the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation (KIC).
Both NVK and KIC serve as members of the Voice of the Arctic
Inupiat (VOICE) along with 18 other North Slope communities and
entities.
I was raised and live in Kaktovik, Alaska, located inside
the 1002 Area of ANWR. All of the organizations I previously
mentioned--NVK, KIC, and VOICE--support oil and gas development
there.
Approximately 92,000 acres of surface lands in and around
the community are owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation,
our Village Corporation. These lands are within and are then
surrounded by ANWR. We are an island in the middle of the
largest wildlife refuge in America.
Much of that land is also the ancestral home of the
Inupiat. Our people are the indigenous inhabitants of the
region and have used the resources it has blessed us with for
more than 10,000 years. While many refer to the controversial
section of ANWR as the 1002 Area, this is the home of the
Kaktovikmuit, the people of Kaktovik.
The bowhead whale, caribou, Dall sheep, musk oxen and the
fish of the region are a vital food source to the Kaktovikmuit.
Another of those natural resources is oil and gas and lots of
it. We rely on the bounty of the land and find sustenance
within ANWR.
Since the mid-1980s, our people have fought unsuccessfully
to open our homelands to responsible exploration and
development. At the same time, Lower 48 lawmakers and special
interest groups in the country have waged war on the idea,
citing the disruption of wildlife and the pristine Arctic
environment.
The Kaktovikmuit and the Arctic Inupiat will not become
conservation refugees. We do not approve of efforts to turn our
homeland into one giant national park, which literally
guarantees us a fate with no economy, no jobs, reduced
subsistence and no hope for the future of our people. We are
already being impacted by restrictions of access to the federal
lands for subsistence purposes.
As ANWR debates occur, the views of the Kaktovikmuit are
often left out. In fact, that is precisely why the leadership
of the Arctic Slope region created VOICE in 2015. We were tired
of outsiders living thousands of miles away, speaking on our
behalf and driving Arctic policy decisions that directly affect
us and our communities.
My fellow Inupiat and I firmly believe in a social license
to operate, and perhaps no other potential project in the
history of America has called for such a blessing from local
indigenous peoples more than this one. We Inupiat have the
benefit of decades of experience working with the oil and gas
industry to implement stringent regulations to protect the
lands through best management practices and the industry
consistently has lived up to our standards. We know development
in ANWR can be done safely because it's already being done
safely, all over the Arctic. We think that now is the time to
open ANWR to measured exploration and development for the
benefit of our community, all of Alaska, and the nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Rexford follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mr. Rexford, thank you, and thank you to each
of you on the panel here this morning.
We will now begin with a round of questions, five minutes
to each member here.
Mr. Rexford, I want to begin with you, if I may, and I do
so because I believe that you are right in your statement that
so often the voice of the people who actually live within the
1002 Area, the area that we are speaking about today, are often
either not heard or just overwhelmed by outside voices.
I think people are often surprised when they realize that
there is a village within the 1002 Area, that there are people
who live there, that the community of Kaktovik, you fly into
and there is an airstrip there, that you have a school for your
children. You have a community hall. You have a store where, I
think, most who go in are shocked and horrified by the prices.
But you live and work and raise your families within the 1002
Area.
I think oftentimes I go back to the map that I showed
initially. This is an area the size of, ANWR is an area the
size of the State of South Carolina. The 1002 Area is an area
the size of Delaware. But there is one village in Delaware and
that village of Kaktovik is home to you and your family and to
others.
Can you provide for the Committee a little bit of the
expectation that the people of Kaktovik might have from the
development of the 1002 Area? Again, we are talking about a
small, small piece. You have seen development at Point Thomson,
which is just 45 miles from the village of Kaktovik. If you
could put it in context, I would appreciate it.
Mr. Rexford. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski.
Yes, the benefits to the community of Kaktovik will be a
lot because the North Slope Borough has a tax base and that is
our regional municipal borough who taxes industry and that
provides the infrastructure that has provided so much to our
communities. It provided us roads, houses, schools, clinics,
and to be able to flush our toilets.
And so, yes, the benefits, we've seen the benefits and we
do not want to go backward. We do not want to hinder the
economy of the North Slope Borough.
The Chairman. Thank you, Matthew.
I remind people that your kids, what you are hoping for for
your children is no different than mine or anybody else. You
want them to be well educated. You want them to have a good
future.
Lieutenant Governor, I would like to ask you a question.
You have spoken very passionately here, as you have in other
forums, about subsistence and the identity that it is to our
Alaska Native people throughout our state, whether you are up
north in the 1002 Area or down in Yakutat in your home
community. Many will say that a subsistence lifestyle and an
opportunity to access the 1002 Area are not consistent, that
there is an inconsistency here, that it cannot be done. Why do
you believe that ANWR development within the 1002 Area can
occur without negatively impacting the Porcupine Caribou herd
or the Native subsistence way of life?
Mr. Mallott. In the some 40 years of development of the
Arctic for oil and gas production, the resources have been most
stable and have grown and waned as their biological cycles
determine, particularly the caribou resource has grown. It has
moved, generally, as it always has in that region.
The impact of development has been carefully managed and
constrained. The management by Alaska of both the petroleum
resource and the renewable natural resources, particularly fish
and game, has been, as Senator Sullivan, a former Commissioner
of Natural Resources of our state and Attorney General of our
state has emphasized, has been of the highest order. The
priority for subsistence use of our fish and game resources is
the highest statutory priority in our state.
As I indicated, it is something that I personally have
fought for my entire life. And whether it is the Gwich'in, the
Inuit, the Tlingit, or any other rural user group of our
natural resources, the State of Alaska has that management and
that responsibility as its highest priority and we will
continue to fight for it.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Mr. Alexander, thank you for your service
to our country and thank you for articulating what I think so
many people know, or a lot of people know intuitively, that our
great outdoors provide great relief. It is one of the reasons
why our veterans have been so outspoken against this
Administration's wrongheaded policies, whether it is tacking on
park fees or trying to run over the Antiquities Act, whatever
it is. I so appreciate our veterans being so supportive of
making sure we have a place to fish and hunt and recreate. So
thank you for that.
I just would point out for the record, I think there have
been something like 640 oil spills in Alaska's North Slope
since 1995, including 13 spills of over 10,000 gallons. Since
2009, thousands of gallons of oil have spilled in the North
Slope as a result of those operations, including, in 2000 when
British Petroleum was ordered to pay $22 million in civil and
criminal penalties because they had illegally disposed of
hazardous waste containing benzene and other toxic chemicals.
And in 2011, BP Exploration Alaska was ordered to pay $25
million in civil penalties for spilling an estimated 213,000
gallons of crude oil from its pipelines onto the North Slope.
So we know what happens. We know what happens. The notion
that people think that this is commensurate is, I think, not
supported by the science, but we will find out what the
Secretary says.
On the Gwich'in and the caribou population, you talked
about the migration impacts and I know that we have seen some
changes in that caribou population. What is the biggest concern
here in the development? That the migration will move out of
the reach of subsistence for the Gwich'in people, or could you
explain what it is that we are so concerned about?
Mr. Alexander. You know, it's interesting when you're down
here in the states and you want to go get some food, you go to
the store and you grab you some beef and it costs you maybe
$4.00 a pound or something like that. You want to get something
organic, nice and tasty and healthy for you, it's going to cost
you about $10, $15 a pound.
As Gwich'in we recognize that we already have that tasty
organic caribou running around up there. It plays a big part of
our diet. And so, what we're concerned with is that, you know,
we call this place, ``lizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit,'' a
sacred place where life begins. This is where the Porcupine
Caribou herd calve. This is it, folks. This is the only spot
that they have their calving. And we're concerned that you have
any type of disruption in that calving ground, it's not that
they're going to move elsewhere, it's that they're not going to
exist.
If you take a look at the boundaries of the Gwich'in Nation
it follows the path of the caribou. So when people talk about,
you know, us being not in the 1002 Area, that's, you know,
true, in one sense, but in the other sense, we speak for the
caribou. That's why we're here. We're their voice.
And they live in that 1002 Area. That's where their babies
are born, alright? That's where their children come from. And
it's our responsibility to ensure that they have a safe place
to do that, to calve. And it's our responsibility to future
generations of Gwich'in people to ensure that we maintain our
livelihood which is tied to the caribou. So very important for
us.
Senator Cantwell. And have we seen changes in that
population closer to the area to where drilling has happened?
Mr. Alexander. You know, people always bring the Central
herd and they talk about how the numbers have grown. They said,
there's more caribou there.
Well, more of something doesn't mean healthier of
something, alright? Let's keep that in mind. There's Americans,
we're a lot more now, aren't we? It doesn't mean we're a lot
healthier. So, let's keep that in mind.
In terms of the impact, though. We do see an impact. The
caribou, they are scared of the development. They run away from
that stuff. They don't want to be out there.
In fact, when we go hunting, you might not know this, but
caribou actually have scouts. They have scouts that go up in
the front. And when the scouts come into trouble, the rest of
the herd moves. Alright? So we always tell our people, you
leave those scouts alone. You let them go ahead and you let the
main herd go by. So the impact that it's going to have is a
real impact.
And we also haven't addressed the impact of climate change
and that's impacting the caribou's land as well as there's more
brush than there has ever been in the past. They've had to
change where they go, alright?
This climate change is real. I just left Fairbanks and
there's no snow on the ground. When I was a kid, it'd be 30
below by the time it's Halloween. It was 30 degrees when I
left. And that has a real impact on the caribou as well. When
it ices over they have a harder time getting to their food. So
I'm hoping to see that this body recognizes that.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Alexander.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
I want to add my support for the opening up of the Coastal
Plain region of ANWR to responsible energy development. This
proposal makes sense on a number of levels.
From an economic perspective, opening up this small, remote
area will provide potentially billions of dollars in federal
revenues alone over the next few decades which could be used to
chip away at our staggering budget deficits that we are facing.
And new development will be a boon, certainly, for Alaska, a
state that is struggling with high unemployment and with its
own budget shortfalls.
Opening up the Coastal Plain also makes sense from an
environmental perspective. Energy development in the United
States meets some of the most rigorous environmental standards
in the entire world. This is especially true in Alaska where
responsible energy production has occurred for decades without
undue harm to the surrounding environment, including polar bear
and caribou habitats.
Much of the credit for this environmental record of
responsibility should go to recent technological innovations.
For example, thanks to modern drilling methods developers can
access hundreds of miles of oil, of subsurface oil, while
occupying just a few acres of surface land. As companies
continue to innovate, the environmental and financial cost of
energy development will fall even further.
But perhaps the biggest, single reason why I support the
opening of the Coastal Plain is because it is widely supported
by the people of Alaska, and particularly the Inupiat, who
actually live in that part of the Refuge. I am a strong
believer that local input should play an outsized role in land
management issues. People living in, on, and near the land in
question should have the most significant say in it. The people
closest to the land deserve to have their voices heard and
deserve to have their wishes respected.
Coming from the State of Utah where the Federal Government
owns nearly two-thirds of the land, I fully understand the
frustrations of Alaskans whose lives and whose livelihoods are
subject, almost constantly, to the whims and wishes of well-
connected interest groups, regulators, and politicians in
Washington, DC, thousands of miles from where the people
connected to the land, themselves, live.
Mr. Rexford, in your testimony you articulated these
frustrations very clearly, very passionately, and eloquently.
Can you talk about the importance that we should take into
account, the importance of incorporating local knowledge and
input in major land decisions, including decisions like the
ones that we are discussing today?
Mr. Rexford. Yes, thank you, Senator Lee.
So, we--I am sorry, can you repeat that question?
Senator Lee. Yes.
Can you just talk to us a little bit about the importance
of taking into account local knowledge, input, local sentiment,
the sentiment of people immediately affected by the land on
making decisions like these?
Mr. Rexford. Yes, thank you.
I would have to say that also the, what brought about the
technological advances was the participation of the local
government on the North Slope and their stringent rules and
conditions and stipulations that they put in place to ensure
that this is done right.
And living in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is
troublesome in the sense that we have limited access to our
lands, to the mountains, during the summer season. We cannot
travel over the tundra without disturbing or harming the tundra
because it is wetland. But throughout most of the year, it's
frozen and we use snow machines to go to the areas where we
need to find what we are looking for.
Senator Lee. So you experience the land differently. You
have a deeper familiarity with it than say, somebody in
Washington, DC, would have and that has an impact on the way
you view it and on the way it should be managed?
Mr. Rexford. Yes, very much so.
And we care deeply about the caribou, about the polar bear,
about the whales, more than anything else because that is what
gives us our livelihoods. We are a strong, subsistence
community and much of what is caught, if we have an
overabundance it's traditional knowledge to share that
abundance with first the elders and those who cannot provide
for themselves.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Mr. Alexander, I want to thank you for
being with us here today. I had a chance to visit the North
Slope, places like Deadhorse, to see a number of the
developments that have occurred there in the Prudhoe Bay area,
and to visit the Refuge as well and to go to places like Arctic
Village.
I was struck by the connection, the language and the
cultural connections with the Navajo people in the Southwest.
That really surprised me.
And in listening to everyone here today, what really struck
me was the way you talked about this place and how different it
was from the way my colleagues talked about this place or the
way the gentlemen from the Department of the Interior talked
about this place.
They talked about the 1002 Area. They talked about ANWR.
ANWR, to me, sounds like a Middle Eastern country covered in
sand where we should just develop lots of oil and gas. They
don't talk about a Refuge.
You said this is the sacred place where life begins. Can
you talk a little bit more about how your people talk about
this place?
Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
Our people think of this place as the heart, you know. We
think of ``lizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit'' as the heart of
the Refuge. Okay? This is the heart of the Refuge.
And you know, it was interesting earlier our Congressman
talked about how it was just a little dot on his nose. And I
thought that was funny because, you know, if I were to say to
you, you want to do something about that dot on your nose,
let's go ahead and have open heart surgery. You'd probably
think, well, that's not a good idea. Right? That's not a good
idea.
And so, when we talk about the Refuge, we talk about the
land. It is tied to our language and our understanding of the
world. And you know, the ``vadzaih,'' the caribou, we are
connected to them and we recognize that.
You know, we talk about, I hear this talk about development
all the time. We need to develop this, we need to develop that.
What I think we need is a little bit of understanding of the
sustainability of the life that we live as Gwich'in, alright?
We're not asking. We're not sitting here asking for
anything. We're not saying we need hospitals. We need schools.
We need all these things. We're not saying give us money. What
we're saying is let us live as Gwich'in because we already
recognize the wealth that we have as people. And there's
nothing that you can give us. But we recognize it's something
that can be taken away from us. And so, when we talk about the
land, when we talk about the caribou, it's in reverence to
them.
And you know, I keep hearing well, the locals, let's hear
what the locals have to say about the 1002 Area. You know who
the locals are? They're caribou. Those are the locals that
don't have a voice and that's why we're here as Gwich'in.
Senator Heinrich. One of the things that really struck me
about that geography was how the Arctic Plain, where the
caribou calve, is the flat place. To the West is, frankly, an
industrial zone. You can say how--you can say birds nest on
every drilling rig, but it doesn't look like that when you are
there.
Then to the South and to the East are mountains, and this
is the place where the caribou flow like a river. And this is
the spring. And if you lose the spring, you lose the whole
river, don't you?
Mr. Alexander. Absolutely because, you know, I think
there's this idea that with development, you know, you're only
going to maybe harm part of the herd or maybe they'll just move
over a little bit. There's not that option for them. There's
not that option.
And so, we're talking about the destruction of the herd and
irreparable damage to our culture, to people that have been
living there for tens of thousands of years. And when I say,
tens of thousands of years, I'm not just making up numbers.
There's a place called Bluefish Cave in the Yukon Territory.
It's the oldest known human campsite in North America, and
that's Gwich'in territory.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cassidy. Thank you.
Thank you all for being here.
I am from Louisiana and, believe it or not, even though
your average temperature in July is probably colder than my
average temperature in December, there are a lot of
similarities between the states.
We obviously have a lot of oil and gas development. One of
the reasons that I think this is such a positive thing is that
there are so many folks in our state who did not go to college,
good people who make good incomes because they are able to work
in the oil and gas industry and actually make a product which
the rest of the world wants and which is economically
beneficial for that family. It is about economic opportunity
for these folks.
But I can also apply what we do in Louisiana to some of the
stuff that we see here. Everybody discusses responsible oil and
gas development with a limited footprint and I can say that in
the Gulf of Mexico that technology has progressed so that you
can dynamically drill going from a central point far out and
then tying back, therefore limiting the pad, if you will, so
the subsea is tiebacks or similar to what is here.
And I look at that because if you look at what Senator
Sullivan gave us: it took a 65-acre gravel pad in 1970 to do
three square miles of drilling; a 12-acre gravel pad in 2016 to
do 55 square miles; and now, for future extended-reach
drilling, it will take a 12-acre gravel pad to do 125 square
miles.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
That is very similar to what we are currently doing in the
Gulf of Mexico where once you have the rig, you go far out and
then tie back in a way which minimizes impact. So I will say
that.
I understand there is currently a project in Alaska that
has an extended drilling well of 35,000 feet, again, that can
reach 125 square miles. So it is not just the Gulf of Mexico,
it is also in Alaska.
Mr. Lieutenant Governor, we actually have empiric evidence
though of everything we are discussing. Since the drilling has
begun in Prudhoe Bay, not far from the 1002 Area, how has
development affected the area and how have these technological
advances that we have spoken of, if you will, modified that
impact?
Mr. Mallott. The technological capacity, as you've just
described, is working on the North Slope. The ability to reduce
the footprint, the ability to reach out is taking place as we
speak. There has been no impact on the 1002 Area simply because
that is the issue before us today, to allow that potential to
be tapped.
There have been comments about spills and other negative
consequences of a massive, decades-long development on the
North Slope producing billions of barrels of oil. And what I
can say to that is that technology has, again, allowed us to be
aggressively responsive, that the regulatory regime has
changed, will continue to evolve and the technology has grown.
Our ability to respond to difficulty has grown. The ability to
maintain the habitat, literally the ecosystems, has been
aggressively managed and issues responded to.
And that is, of course, part of the emphasis of our
testimony today is to say that we can deal both with the need
for the development, the production of the petroleum resource,
to manage the future of the renewable resources----
Senator Cassidy. Let me just mention, because I am about to
run out of seconds.
Just to reiterate your point or to emphasize your point
from the picture about your way to do responsible drilling--
Senator Sullivan gave this out----
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cassidy. ----and it shows ice pads being used for
this rig and when it thaws you see no roads, you see no pads
because they are ice pads and ice roads and they all melt away.
And the only thing left is an 8x8-foot well house that remains
for future development, but nothing else is seen. So you all
have done a very nice job of preserving the ecosystem without
trace, except for an 8x8-foot well house.
Mr. Mallott. That is exactly right.
Senator Cassidy. I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you, gentlemen, for the conversation today.
I would like to start with Mr. Sheehan.
Mr. Sheehan, you have an extensive background in
conservation and 25 years in Utah. Nevada appreciates it. It is
our neighbor to the east, and I have spent a lot of time in
southern Utah, beautiful country. I know you have been there
for 25 years with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, that
is correct? And the Director at some point in time in the last
five years?
Mr. Sheehan. I was the Director for the past five years,
yes.
Senator Cortez Masto. That is great.
Can I ask you this? My understanding of the 1980 law and
the purpose of the Refuge states four things: to conserve fish
and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural
diversity; to fulfill the international treaty obligations of
the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their
habitats; to provide, in a manner consistent with purposes one
and two, the opportunity for continued subsistence uses by
local residents; and to ensure water quality and necessary
water quantity within the Refuge. Are those purposes still true
today?
Mr. Sheehan. Excuse me, yes, absolutely. Those are still
being fulfilled.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
Then can you explain to me how, if we are to open it up to
oil and gas drilling, that is compatible with those purposes?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, thank you, Senator.
As part of the 1980 ANILCA law that you referenced, it
certainly established criteria to manage the Refuge area by and
that's still being fulfilled.
But when you talk about compatibility in the 1997 Wildlife
Refuge Act, it says, ``Each refuge shall be managed to fulfill
the mission of the system as well as the specific purpose for
which that refuge was established.'' And at the time that that
refuge was established, sections 1002 and 1003 of ANILCA
created an avenue for the discussion of exploratory work and
potentially drilling down in the future, under section 1003. So
at this point the Department of the Interior and the President
and Secretary are committed to honoring the desires of the
state, honoring the desires of the need for energy independence
and still fulfilling the law of ANILCA which provided
opportunity under that very law, that you mentioned, to perform
these types of activities.
Senator Cortez Masto. So there is no compatibility standard
that you have to look at? You feel it is in the law that you
have the authority to come in and listen to the locals. This is
what they want, so this is what you are going to do. Is that
correct?
Mr. Sheehan. Certainly we strive to make every action
compatible, as best we can within that area.
As has been mentioned multiple times today, that's a 19.5-
million-acre area within the boundaries of the Refuge, about
1.5 million of that are in the 1002 Area. If this body of
Congress elects to allow for the development of oil and gas
resources in that area, we'll work to ensure compatibility of
that use with other existing uses----
Senator Cortez Masto. So is your position today that you,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, does not have a position?
You are just going to really do whatever we in Congress say you
should be doing? So you are not here advocating one way or the
other?
Mr. Sheehan. No, Senator. I'm saying that the compatibility
of that Refuge will be determined, as I mentioned, with the
specific purposes for which that Refuge was established.
Senator Cortez Masto. Is it different than what I just
identified previously?
Mr. Sheehan. It is those four elements you mentioned.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
Mr. Sheehan. But it's certainly also the potential
exploration and development of other uses as we've heard from
multiple members here today.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay, thank you.
Let me just turn to Lieutenant Governor Mallott. Thank you
so much for joining us today.
We have been instructed to raise $1 billion in this
Committee as part of Fiscal Year '18 budget in order to pay for
$1.5 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy. I do not see how
opening the Refuge to oil and gas leasing will come close to
raising that $1 billion, but I am here to understand the
numbers and understand why many think it can. Can you explain
that math to me or do you have an understanding of that at all?
Mr. Mallott. I have a general understanding. I've seen the
materials. I've seen the analysis. It seems very clear that
with the prospective development and the already existing
analysis of the size of the reserve or reserves that very
significant revenue can accrue to both the federal and the
state governments.
Senator Cortez Masto. Do you think it is going to be $1
billion to the Federal Government to cover that?
Mr. Mallott. It will. I believe it will be many multiples
of that number, yes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Based on the numbers that you have
seen?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. I appreciate that.
I notice my time is up. Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Lieutenant Governor, it is a pleasure to see you. When
Governor Walker testified a little earlier, he mentioned a
bipartisan group of us who have been to Bethel and then to
Oscarville. I had a chance to do that. And then I was with
Senator Murkowski again this spring and had an opportunity to
visit Pump Station 1 of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System in
Deadhorse. It is my understanding that the throughput on the
pipeline peaked in the late '80s, which is what the Governor
had talked about, and since then it has declined to about 25
percent of the pipeline capacity.
Could you explain the importance of the pipeline to
Alaska's economy and why it is so important to maximize the
throughput on that pipeline?
Mr. Mallott. The pipeline is at 25 percent of its capacity.
The need to continue to utilize it and its full capacity is
clear when we look at the national security interests of our
nation, when we look at the revenue needs of our state, when we
look at the revenue needs of our nation and the impact on the
economy of our state, the impact on the economy of our nation,
are each very clear.
The opportunity to allow our nation and our state to have
revenue, not just to meet the full range of existing budgetary
needs, but to be responsive to a changing climate, particularly
in our state, is very real and must be addressed and if not by
our nation, then by our state, which we are fully prepared to
do. But it requires resources, fiscal resources, in order to do
so.
I want to emphasize once again, that our national security
interest is critical, that we, in Alaska, sometimes feel fairly
vulnerable. We are in a geopolitical area where modest capacity
of destructive force that we can be a target.
We know that a changing Arctic is changing the security
interests of each of the nations involved. Those are open
questions as we speak. And the need for our nation and our
state to have security is very significant.
We also support and believe that with that kind of national
security interest being responded to, that the full range of
interest that allow us to live reasonable, responsible, good
lives, create a society for our state, are significantly tied
in with the pipeline and its ability to deliver petroleum to
our nation and to our world.
Senator Barrasso. I agree. That is essentially the same
assessment that I had, having been to the locations and
obviously being from an energy state in Wyoming, the similar
concerns and similar needs that we have for a nation, in terms
of energy security, energy independence, and now as President
Trump says, energy dominance, in terms of the geopolitical
threats that we face from around the world, as you so
appropriately stated.
I have one other follow-up question. Given the close
proximity of the Coastal Plain area to the Trans-Alaska
Pipeline System and other development in Prudhoe Bay, do you
believe that there are some opportunities to conduct some
coordinated mitigation projects that could, in fact, actually
improve existing wildlife habitat?
Mr. Mallott. I believe so, yes.
Senator Barrasso. Okay.
Mr. Mallott. The North Slope Borough has a very robust
resource management program. The State of Alaska and our Fish
and Wildlife Management and our Natural Resource Department and
our Department of Environmental Conservation will work as hard
as we can in order to both maintain and, where opportunities
present, to grow the full range of fish and wildlife and other
natural resources on those lands.
Senator Barrasso. Yes.
Mr. Sheehan, do you have anything that you might want to
add to that in terms of opportunities to conduct some of these
mitigation projects and, in fact, improve existing wildlife
habitat?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, thank you, Senator.
Certainly, I think there's work that is going on throughout
those areas now for mitigation, but there's also a lot of
research going on up there.
Our U.S. Geological Survey is doing work and we're trying
to learn, not just simply about how to mitigate, but how to use
best practices to avoid conflicts, to avoid challenges that
could exist from the introduction of oil and gas so that if we
do have this type of work done down the road, that it's done
responsibly and as best it can be with the wildlife resources.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a series of somewhat technical questions that I
think are important in evaluating this. I do not see any
witnesses that can strictly address them. I am afraid, Mr.
Sheehan, you are the nearest I have so you are going to get the
questions.
Mr. Sheehan. Okay, I'll give it a try.
Senator King. Hopefully, eventually, we will be able to get
this.
The first question is, as I understand this proposed
legislation which we have not seen yet, that the House bill
talks about a 2,000-acre limitation and I have heard that
mentioned. Senator Sullivan has mentioned that. Is that a
contiguous 2,000 acres within this 1.5 million acres or is that
12 acres here and 10 acres over there? Do you know what that
2,000 acres means?
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator.
I'm going to have to defer that question because I've not
seen any language so I can't respond to that. I don't know----
Senator King. Well, I think that is an important question
because it was presented to me as the size of Dulles airport,
which is fine if it's just one place, but I think what it means
is it is scattered all over the place and if you add it all
together it is 2,000 acres.
Second question. Do you know how many wells are
contemplated in this development?
Mr. Sheehan. Again, I think that depends on what's passed
by the body of this Congress if, in fact, an action is passed
because that could stipulate which area of this could be
developed, potentially all of it, potentially some part of it.
So I think until we have a better sense of that I can't
really respond to how many wells might be----
Senator King. Again, if we are being told that there are
ten billion barrels here, then we have to do--if that is what
people are representing is what we are after, it seems to me we
have to do some calculations about what that implies.
My back-of-the-envelope, and it is always dangerous to turn
me loose with a calculator, is we are talking several thousand
wells to produce ten billion barrels over ten years. Again, I
think it is an important question to assess the impact. Are we
talking ten wells, a hundred wells, or a thousand wells?
Third question. Any idea how this oil is going to get out
from all these wells? How does it get anywhere?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, again, I suspect that the most likely
method of moving that would be via pipelines, but that's how
most of that oil is moved now----
Senator King. We are not only talking about these 12 acre
pads, but now we are talking about pipelines and, presumably,
roads to get to these various places.
Any ideas on the cost of extraction in this region? What we
are talking about is whether this is $50 barrel oil or $40 or
$60?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, the analysis done by the U.S. Geological
Survey said it's economically recoverable at $42 a barrel. And
when they define economically recoverable they say that there
would be a 12 percent profitability factor, if you will, or 12
percent margin on that. So that's the price point that was done
in analysis in 2009. And certainly, oil prices, a little higher
than that today, but it's hard to say what they could be in
many years.
Senator King. Well, I understand that you are a resource
guy and you are from the Department of the Interior, not an oil
and gas guy, but it does bother me that you are representing
the Administration today telling us that this is an okay deal
without knowing the answers to my questions.
I do not see how you can say this looks fine unless you
know how many wells, how many miles of pipeline, or where they
will be located. I mean, we are being asked to make an
assessment here of essentially economic benefit versus
environmental risk, but I do not see how you can make that
evaluation without knowing the answers to those questions that
I have raised.
Mr. Sheehan. Well, thank you again, Senator.
You know, without having a full set of legislation, knowing
what that direction is to us, it would be hard for myself or
even an oil and gas expert to answer all of those questions,
but what I will say is that, you know, there are difficult
choices to make here----
Senator King. I agree with that, but I want to know what
choices I am making. I don't want to make choices where I don't
understand what the impacts are going to be. That is all I am
suggesting.
Mr. Sheehan. Well, and what I would say today is that we
support responsible development in whatever form or fashion
that that best occurs in and we know more about what that
footprint of that area looks like and what technologies are
best available, if and when this effort takes place, which
could be many years from now before drilling took place. I
expect that there will be evolving technologies between now and
then just as we've seen many in the last eight or nine years.
Senator King. Thank you.
Madam Chair, I hope that if we are talking about marking up
legislation, that we will have the materials and the data
necessary to answer the questions that I have raised.
I do not see how we can possibly make this decision without
answering the fundamental question of how many wells are we
talking about? How many miles of pipeline? We just cannot make
that trade-off without having that data. I respectfully request
that we have an opportunity to explore that data before we are
asked to mark up a bill.
The Chairman. Senator King, I do hope that you are going to
be able to stick around for the second panel because I think
that we will have an opportunity to get into some more of the
specifics, but again, recognizing----
Senator King. Yes.
The Chairman. ----recognizing that in terms of what may
actually be produced, again, depends on a lot of variables that
we are going to make assumptions on, but again, I think you
will get more of the specifics with some of the folks that we--
--
Senator King. I hope so. I looked down the list and did not
see anyone that I thought would be responsive to those
particular questions.
Senator Cantwell. I think, Madam Chair, too, my colleagues
and I feel very strongly that we want to see something and
understand it before we vote on it. So it is hard to believe
that that would take place by next Wednesday.
The Chairman. We are certainly not going to be voting on
anything that we do not have in front of us. This is an
opportunity for us to----
Senator Cantwell. And to understand the impact on the
Interior Department. That is the issue. My colleague is saying
he wants to understand from experts what that impact is.
The Chairman. Today's hearing is an opportunity for us to
hear about the 1002 Area, something that this Committee has not
had an opportunity to do in about seven years now.
Let's go to Senator Daines.
Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
Cantwell.
I know it is a long flight from Alaska to Washington, DC.
Thank you for making that journey.
I must tell you as a Montanan, somebody who respects the
voice of the states and the voice of the people who live in
those states, I am struck, deeply struck, by the fact we have
had both U.S. Senators from the State of Alaska, their lone
Congressman, the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, 90 percent
of the Alaska legislature and 70 percent of Alaskans when
polled on this issue support moving forward, as we are
proposing to do with drilling in the 1002.
I just think it is a bit arrogant for Washington, DC, folks
who are long ways away from Alaska to be in some way dictating
the future of what Alaskans want to do and being contrary, some
here in this body, and your voice should count in this city.
And to this Senator, it does. Thank you for making the journey.
In my home state, like Alaskans and those from Colorado, we
have a blend of protecting the environment as well as
responsibly developing our natural resources. This is a Senator
who spent August backpacking 70 miles in the wilderness with my
wife, over two weekends. A credit to my wife for carrying all
that weight too. She is tough.
But I cherish those kind of outdoor experiences. I cherish
the ability to fly fish, to hunt, to backpack, to climb
mountains. This is in no way an either/or kind of proposition.
This is truly a both/and situation.
I saw that same blend, that passion for the outdoors, for
the incredible landscapes in Alaska when I had the opportunity
to see the North Slope in May, in fact, with the Chairman of
this Committee. And I am just struck. Alaska is an amazing
place, truly beautiful. But I know the frustrations of Alaskans
that say, we want to be able to define our future and not have
Washington, DC, do it for us.
Mr. Sheehan, as I stated earlier, protecting the
environment is a value that both Montanans and Alaskans share.
As an outdoorsman, I am particularly interested in caribou. I
have never hunted caribou, but it would be on my bucket list.
As the agency that manages our wildlife, the agency that
manages our wildlife, Mr. Sheehan, do you believe that
production in the 1002 Area can have minimal impact on the
local caribou herds?
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator Daines.
You know, I guess I'd harken back to my time, was brought
up by the good Senator from Nevada, about serving as the State
Director in Utah where we, too, there built great populations
of large ungulates, deer, elk, moose and commercially had
energy development within many of those same areas. You've seen
that both in Colorado and Montana, as has been pointed out.
These efforts to go into these fragile landscapes can be
done. They can be done successfully. Yes. Do our employees have
concerns about doing this in a very careful manner? Certainly,
they do. But we have wildlife challenges throughout America
that we're challenged with every day, not only the federal U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, who I'm honored to serve among the
great employees there, but all of the states.
And as we look at all of the challenges that exist in
America, whether that's oil and gas development, wind energy,
solar and all the other opportunities that are there for
developing energy, all of those have impacts of wildlife
resources and fishery resources.
But I'll say this, if this Congress directs us that way we
use the best science, the best technologies and other
strategies such as timing that we've heard much about today and
reduced footprint, to make sure that that has the least amount
of impact on the native wildlife species.
Senator Daines. I want to talk to Lieutenant Governor
Mallott.
We have a vibrant outdoor economy like Alaska does. We have
millions of acres of public lands, of wilderness. Alaska has, I
understand, over 56 million acres of wilderness, about 15
percent of the total acres, and hundreds of millions of
additional acres of federal lands, totaling around 60 percent.
Some is suitable for hiking, some for snowmobiling, some should
be left as wilderness. But some is suitable for timber
production, others for mining, oil, or gas exploration.
Do you believe that we are taking a balanced approach by
opening up the 1002 Area to production allowing Alaska and all
Americans to benefit from the revenue and security generated
from this land?
Mr. Mallott. Thank you, Senator.
I will just emphasize once again that I was with the Alaska
Federation of Natives when ANILCA was being developed. I was
with the Native community as a leader in the development of
ANCSA which is the precedent act to ANILCA.
The effort at balance was among the most important
considerations in the development of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA, which ultimately
gained the approval of such giants of conservation as
Congressman Mo Udall, the Secretary of the Interior at the time
from Idaho, the range of conservation interests and other
interests across our nation and within Alaska. It was a grand
bargain that was dealing with immense millions of acres, 160
million acres of land in our state went into the federal
classifications in our state.
Within those classifications there were----
Senator Daines. I do not have a lot of time, I will insert
myself here.
Mr. Mallott. Right.
Senator Daines. Do you think we are taking a balanced
approach?
Mr. Mallott. Absolutely.
Senator Daines. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Mallott. You mean when I'm responding I'm using your
time? Wow, I didn't know that, sorry.
[Laughter.]
Senator Daines. It was probably better that I interrupt you
than the Chairman from your state, so . . .
The Chairman. I appreciate that.
Lieutenant Governor, thank you.
Senator Stabenow.
Senator Stabenow. Well, thank you, Madam Chair.
I am very, very concerned about the direction of where this
is going, and one of the reasons I did not support the budget
resolution was because of the provision that would assume $1
billion coming from opening ANWR. I appreciate the Ranking
Member's opening comments and other colleagues that have
expressed concerns. But when we talk about listening to people
from Alaska, we certainly want to do that. I wish we had more
diversity here in terms of viewpoints from Alaska. That would
be more helpful.
I remember in 2010 I traveled with Senator Begich to Alaska
to attend a field hearing on the impact of climate change on
Alaska, and we saw what was happening in terms of the snow
melting, really quite astounding to see the impacts of climate
change on our Arctic. On that trip, I had an opportunity to
visit the Tutusix Bay and to meet with the Native Americans
there in the far Southwest part of Alaska which has become a
center of alternative energy investments. I was so impressed
with the very tall large wind turbines, and was particularly
happy to find out that some of the component parts were
actually manufactured in Michigan. So I felt an immediate
connection with what the tribe was doing and how the vision of
moving to types of energy that would actually be so much better
for Alaska in terms of what is happening because of the
changing climate.
And then I had the opportunity to meet with the tribal
elders of Newtok to discuss what was happening for them, the
importance of preserving local language and culture and the
fact that they are going to have to be evacuated. I don't know
if that has fully happened yet, Lieutenant Governor, but I know
at the time we were walking on boards. Water was seeping up.
The whole community, the whole village was going to have to be
moved because of the water that was coming in and going to
engulf the community as a result of the permafrost melting. And
we saw directly what was happening.
This is deeply concerning to me that we are not embracing
what I saw in terms of new opportunities with types of
alternative fuel that would actually, it would seem to me,
benefit the quality of life of people in Alaska.
But as we sit here today to discuss opening ANWR to oil
drilling, even with no evidence that drilling in these areas
will increase U.S. energy security and real questions about
whether allowing drilling will help the federal budget at all,
it feels very much like a political exercise as opposed to
looking to the future and what is needed for the people of
Alaska, as well as preserving this pristine area.
Mr. Alexander, I know you have spoken a little bit about
this, but could you help me better understand real world
consequences of allowing drilling in ANWR and talk a little bit
more about important cultural and tribal perspectives about
what it would mean, from your standpoint, to allow for new
drilling in these pristine lands?
Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
You know, when we think about the real-world consequences
of drilling it goes back to the protection, you know, of our
way of life as Gwich'in people.
There's a story about how, you know, long ago we had to
rely on the caribou and the closeness of our relationship is
such that we even say that there's a little bit of caribou
heart in us and a little bit of human heart in the caribou.
And so, this impact is a real impact. And it's funny to me
because I don't quite understand. We kept talking about
economic development and I hear this a lot as an excuse to be
going in and drilling.
Economic development. Economic development. What does that
actually mean? I think that's not a recognition that the
subsistence economy is a real thing. It's not a recognition
that, you know, I find it hard to understand, like, why would
somebody, why would a Gwich'in person want to work a 40 hour a
week job making money so they could turn around and go buy
organic food? How does that make sense to anybody? Why would
you do that? So I'm going to go work harder so then I could buy
food of lower quality, like, how does that make sense? That
doesn't make sense to me. That's why we're just perplexed as to
what you say when you're talking about progress. Is progress
like eating Spam? Is that progress? I don't think so.
You know, here down in the states when you want to talk
status, people talk about going to, you know, talking about
going to Whole Foods and eating organic food. That's status.
Alright? You're saying oh, it's important because it's
important for our health to eat this healthy food.
So what is all this drilling for? So that we can have money
to do what? To live like Gwich'in? We already live like
Gwich'in. We're not trying to change anything in that regard. I
think you could learn a lot by seeing how we live. You could
learn a lot because we're not chasing our tails up there.
And so, you know, going back to the tribal perspective. The
tribal perspective is that it is our responsibility and our
duty to take care of the land and take care of the animals
because they've taken care of us for thousands of years,
thousands of years.
And you know, you're going to hear Alaska Native
Corporations representatives coming up here and talk about
responsible development too. And I just want to make it clear
while I have the time to do such. The Alaska Native
Corporations are not tribes. They are not tribes. They do not
have a traditional language. Their purpose is profit.
Our purpose as Gwich'in is to protect our traditional way
of life and to live that traditional way of life in an
honorable way. And so, our elders told us when you go up there
you do it in a good way. You do it in a good way. And that good
way is to be respectful.
I have a peer over here. You know he's from the North
Slope. And we respect their food security. Whenever there's any
issue of drilling in the Arctic Ocean, we know that the Inupiat
don't want drilling in the Arctic Ocean because it will impact
the whales. It will impact the sea life and they know that and
they're worried about that. So they don't want it. And we stand
beside them and we say we recognize your right to exist as
indigenous people and we recognize that you have a right to
food security. And we stand beside you when you do such.
Senator Stabenow. Thank you. I realize my time is up. I
have further questions, but I will submit them for the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Stabenow.
Senator Gardner.
Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to
the witnesses for being here today. I realize and recognize, as
Senator Daines did, this is a long ways to travel. So thank you
very much for being here.
Mr. Sheehan, a couple questions for you that came up, I
think, during some of the other questions.
When Congress moves forward, as we are today, if there is a
lease plan developed for the 1002 Area, environmental laws do
not change, they are not waived. They remain the same as they
are today. Is that correct?
Mr. Sheehan. Yes, that's correct, Senator.
Senator Gardner. And there would be a leasing plan that
would be developed with public input. Is that correct?
Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely. There'd be full environmental
impact reviews.
Senator Gardner. And there are environmental reviews? Is
that correct?
Mr. Sheehan. Absolutely.
Senator Gardner. And there is an analysis of how this would
impact the environment. Is that correct?
Mr. Sheehan. Yes.
Senator Gardner. Does that change as a result of the 1002
process?
Mr. Sheehan. No, there's nothing in that process that would
allow for changing any of those environmental considerations or
rules.
Senator Gardner. Will this area be going into production
the day after Congress passes legislation?
Mr. Sheehan. We would expect that probably lease sales,
perhaps two, would occur four to five years from now with
drilling being potentially as far out as seven to ten years.
Senator Gardner. So seven to ten years.
Litigation? Do you get sued or does this waive lawsuits?
Mr. Sheehan. This doesn't waive lawsuits, but certainly we
don't like lawsuits any more than anyone else does.
Senator Gardner. So there is going to be--yes.
I guess what I am saying is that the process of
environmental protection, environmental reviews, environmental
analysis does not change one iota. Correct?
Mr. Sheehan. That's true. Yes.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
Lieutenant Governor, the Governor's opening statement and
your extensive written testimony lay out some of the history of
the founding of Alaska, the laws that led us to the current
situation, and your experience working with the oil and gas
industry. I have a couple questions for you.
Alaska was brought into the Union as a state with the
understanding that it would be allowed to responsibly develop
the resources available to it. Is that correct, yes or no?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Gardner. When the compromise legislation, the
Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, was passed in
1980, it expanded what was then known as the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, by almost nine million acres to create what we
now know as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, excuse me,
previous, the Range, now the Refuge. Is that correct?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Gardner. That bill doubled the size of the National
Park System, doubled the size of the National Refuge System and
tripled the amount of federal land designated as wilderness. Is
that correct?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Gardner. That same bill, which massively expanded
conservation protections for many areas of the state, also
specifically set aside the Coastal Plain, or 1002 lands, for
the scientific evaluation of its petroleum development,
potential environmental qualities, and the possibility of safe
development. Is that correct?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Gardner. And the studies conducted by the
Department of the Interior led them to recommend Congress adopt
a full oil and gas leasing program for the 1002 Area. Is that
correct?
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Gardner. Does the United States consume more oil
today than it produces?
Mr. Mallott. It does. Yes.
Senator Gardner. So we still import oil today. I think that
has been talked about.
Is it fair to say that not all of the countries we import
oil from share the same values as the United States?
Mr. Mallott. Absolutely.
Senator Gardner. And I think production of domestic energy
allows us greater leverage over those nations that we import
oil from.
Does it make any sense that we would tie the hands of the
State of Alaska, the hands of her people, when we have the
opportunity to responsibly and sustainably develop a resource
that will increase national security of the United States and
the prosperity of your state? Does it make any sense to tie
your hands?
Mr. Mallott. It does not.
Senator Gardner. And so, based on your experience, I think,
and these answers, this is not a situation where there is
something new being proposed by Congress. It is actually
something that Congress set forward to allow.
Mr. Sheehan, it was mentioned, your experience in the State
of Utah, in the wildlife work, in particular. I think 25 years
in Utah, is that correct, as a conservation specialist?
Mr. Sheehan. Yes.
Senator Gardner. And the last five years, prior to your
appointment, you were running the State of Utah's Division of
Wildlife Resources. You oversaw a significant increase in mule
deer production. Is that correct?
Mr. Sheehan. That's true.
Senator Gardner. Utah has a heck of a lot of energy
production, is that right?
Mr. Sheehan. In certain areas of the state, yes.
Senator Gardner. How do you balance that? How did you
actually grow a population when you have that development? How
do you balance that?
Mr. Sheehan. Well, I think the key to balancing any of that
work is to try to avoid and minimize footprints the best we
can.
Our biologists and team members there work with those
development companies to look at siting locations and have
tried to develop those areas in the most responsible way they
can to minimize impact to wildlife numbers and I think we've
seen some good success with those efforts.
Senator Gardner. Based on your professional experience
then, can we responsibly develop the resources that Congress
has put in agreement with the State of Alaska and minimize
impact to wildlife and other parts of the ecosystem?
Mr. Sheehan. Certainly I believe that if that's developed
there can be similar efforts to minimize the impacts to
wildlife in that 1002 Area.
Senator Gardner. Thank you.
My time is expired, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
We will next go to Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
One argument that we often hear from my friends across the
aisle is that we need to open more federal land to drilling,
and in Alaska, but if you look at the facts it is simply not
true that the big oil companies like access to public lands,
especially in Alaska.
Of the more than one million acres of federal land under
lease for oil and gas drilling in Alaska, only about 17,000 are
actually being drilled on by the end of Fiscal Year 2016,
17,000 out of one million. Maybe that is why the pipeline is
only operating at 25 percent of capacity. And the Trump
Administration just announced that it would lease another ten
million acres of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. They
announced this in December. Simply put, there is no shortage of
federal oil and gas leases in Alaska. It is not even close.
I don't know why it is necessary to open a pristine natural
area like this Refuge. Why the Refuge?
And speaking to Senator King's questions that Mr. Sheehan
could not answer, I just think that if my colleagues across the
aisle think that drilling in this Refuge is such a good idea,
we should have hearings. We should do this as regular order and
not do this on the quick and cheap because of a tax plan.
Mr. Alexander, I would like to read you a quote from my
good friend, the late Senator Paul Wellstone, and get your
response.
Senator Wellstone fought for more than a decade to preserve
the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve and for the rights of the
Gwich'in people. Sorry if I pronounced it wrong. He said of
your people, and I quote, ``They are fighting for their most
fundamental right to exist as an indigenous people who are an
integral part of the landscape of the unique ecology of this
region. We cannot condemn the Gwich'in as a people. We must
respect their right for survival.''
You have spoken eloquently to this. I do have some other
questions, but doesn't it seem strange to all of us, to me it
does anyway, that we are talking about you as--and by the way,
thank you for your service in our military. But we are talking
about changing the habitat and the way of life for these
indigenous peoples to get $1 billion worth of resources, a lot
of which is to address climate change. Can you just talk to the
irony here or your feelings on it?
Mr. Alexander. That's absolutely correct, Senator, and
thank you for your words.
It is absolutely astounding that we want to--you know, when
I was in the Army we used to call it a self-licking ice cream
cone. And this is really what this has become where we are
trying to drill more oil, pump out more pollutants, to address
climate change and the impact that it has. And that is just
insanity to me. And that's insanity to the Gwich'in people. We
don't understand that. And so, you know, perhaps my colleagues
here can explain it, but I can't understand it.
Senator Franken. Lieutenant Governor, you know that the
impact of climate change on your state, that your state is
warming twice as fast as the rest of the country.
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Franken. And this means coastal erosion and loss of
sea ice and melting permafrost. I hear that part of the reason
for drilling in this area, when there is going to be over 11
million other acres available to drill, is to address
mitigation for climate change. Drilling for oil in the last
pristine Arctic ecosystem on the continent while climate change
is having a disproportionate impact on the region seems, to me,
kind of ironic.
As you have made clear, Lieutenant Governor, climate change
has deeply impacted your constituents. I think we need to curb
emissions and provide support to communities to help them adapt
to climate change, but not by drilling in the habitat of the
food source for an indigenous people. Do you disagree that
there is some irony here?
The Chairman. Lieutenant Governor, the Senator's time is
expired, but I will allow you an opportunity to answer the
question because it is an important one.
Mr. Mallott. I disagree. We need to continue to evolve our
petroleum-based economy as we also seek to be responsive to our
climate change reality. Nobody knows that better than we do. We
live with it every single day.
It will take decades for us to withdraw from reliance on a
petroleum-based economy. And for us, in the meantime, to rely
on sources other than our own raises national security issues.
It raises economic issues. It raises issues that impact us in
Alaska very directly.
The resources that the development of the Coastal Plain can
bring to Alaska will allow us to have fiscal resources to meet
rapidly changing climate circumstances. Otherwise, we have no
real ability to respond. The national government must
ultimately also respond.
I do not believe there is an irony when the ecosystem that
we are discussing is already in place to allow the most
minimal, going forward, impact on the Arctic Coastal Plain of
any oil development. I do not think it is ironic----
Senator Cantwell. Madam Chair? Madam Chair?
I think we are going to have a vote, two votes at noon, and
there are several of our colleagues who have been here. I would
like them--I know our Lieutenant Governor here has been over
time. I hope that we can get a short summation here----
The Chairman. We----
Senator Cantwell. ----so that we can move on.
Mr. Mallott. Sure.
I disagree that it is ironic. I think it is a national
interest. It is in Alaska's interest. It is in the world's
interest that we allow this kind of development to take place,
that it has the most minimal impact that we can see and that it
allows us to be responsive to a climate change future that we
must address.
The Chairman. Thank you, Lieutenant Governor.
Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
This hearing is in the context of the Republican tax and
budget plan singling out this Committee to come up with $1
billion of revenue savings over the next decade.
The Committee has until November 13th to come up with this
amount. So this hearing is all a piece to support the
Republican budget and tax proposal that cuts $1.5 trillion from
Medicare and Medicaid and imposes massive reductions in funds
for education and affordable housing, among other things, all
to benefit huge corporations and the wealthy. So we therefore
should resist the urge to compartmentalize what we are doing in
this Committee as disconnected from a larger picture. The
larger picture being the Republican tax and budget plan.
So here we are. The decades-long debate over the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge is a highly controversial issue that
has come to represent a fight between protecting pristine
ecosystems and continuing our reliance on fossil fuels. And we
should not be considering whether to exploit national treasures
like the Arctic Refuge to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
Instead, we should be discussing how to raise royalties
from companies already drilling and mining on public lands so
that taxpayers get a fair deal, reduce overly generous revenue
sharing payments from offshore oil drilling and limit the
ability of companies to flare natural gas so that resources
from public lands are not wasted.
I want to ask Mr. Sheehan a question. Does the Trump
Administration support drilling in ANWR?
Mr. Sheehan. Yes, they do.
Senator Hirono. Okay.
Is that why there is an August 11 memo from U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Acting Director James Kurth instructing the agency's
Alaska Regional Director to update a rule that had to do with
exploratory drilling between 1984 and 1986 and lifting these
calendar constraints so that more applications can be submitted
to approve drilling? That is where we are heading, right? In
spite of the fact that it is Congress that gets to make the
ultimate decision as to whether or not drilling is appropriate
in ANWR.
Mr. Sheehan. Thank you, Senator.
First of all, the document you referred to and those
surrounding documents were not any part of a rule that's been
publicly released yet, but I will say this. If in fact this
body of Congress wants to contemplate the development of oil
and gas in the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge, it should be done with the best science, the most
current science available and that involves probably the most
current level of exploration using the most modern
technologies.
That original research that was done, was done in the early
1980s and that was----
Senator Hirono. Mr. Sheehan, do you think this Committee
can come up with all of that by November 13th?
Mr. Sheehan. I don't believe that, in my opinion, this
Committee has asked to have all that research work done. I
believe that should the body of Congress pass it, we want to
make a best-informed decision to our public of what and where
and when that could look like and to industry who may be
interested in pursuing bidding on that one.
Senator Hirono. We agree with that. That is why I am really
glad that Senator King raised some very specific questions to
you which you could not answer.
It really has to do with--you know what, Mr. Lieutenant
Governor, you said that we should proceed in a way that has the
most minimal impact. And, of course, that is the crux of the
debate as to what kind of impact drilling in ANWR will have.
There are people on one side of the debate that say this is
going to have a terribly detrimental impact on the environment
and, as so eloquently put by Mr. Alexander, that it would
impact their way of life.
By the way, Mr. Alexander, I'm really glad that you came
and testified because I believe that as Native peoples you
share certain common perspectives as the Native Hawaiians do
and that is a very strong, spiritual, economic, if you want to
economize it, connection to the land. I think it is really
important to the Gwich'in Tribe, which covers a very large part
of the area that we are talking about, as well in Canada. I am
really grateful for your testimony.
That is why the debate has continued because there has been
a huge discussion as to how minimal the impact of drilling
would be, and there are those who believe that it will not,
indeed, be minimal.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Senator Sanders.
Senator Sanders. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Madam Chair, my guess is that historians in years to come
will look back at hearings like this and they will ask, what
were they thinking about? What world were they living in? Why
didn't they see what was going on all around them?
All over this planet today we are seeing nations, including
our own, ravaged by the impact of climate change. And
meanwhile, while climate change is doing horrendous damage to
peoples all over the world, we have hearings like this that
talk about more oil exploration, more dependency on fossil
fuels when the evidence is overwhelming that this country
should lead the world in transforming our energy system away
from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energies.
And it is especially surprising that in a beautiful state
like Alaska, which has been hit so hard by climate change, that
you are not leading the world, leading this country in telling
us the damage that has been done and the need to move away from
fossil fuel.
Right now, according to NASA, the first six months of 2017
were almost a full degree hotter than any year since records
started being kept in 1880. This is unbelievable. The duration
and strength of hurricanes--and I just came back from Puerto
Rico--have increased by 50 percent. 2017 is already one of the
worst wildfire seasons on record.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change tells us that
the average global sea levels have already risen by about three
millimeters annually since the early 1990s and coastal cities
all over our country and the world are in danger of being
flooded. And here we are talking about more dependency on
fossil fuels. More destruction of the planet. What world are we
living in? What are you going to say to your children and your
grandchildren?
Meanwhile, there is a revolution taking place in
sustainable energy. We are seeing the price of solar and wind
plummeting. We are seeing massive corporate investments, not in
oil, not in gas, by the way, but in sustainable energy. The
solar sector today employs more people than Apple, Google and
Facebook combined.
So I have a simple question. I do understand, Mr. Sheehan,
that your boss, the President, told us during the campaign that
climate change was a hoax. Right? It was a hoax. Briefly, Mr.
Sheehan, is climate change a hoax or is it real?
Mr. Sheehan. No, Senator Sanders, certainly I believe that
climate change is real. I believe we can see it from areas from
Alaska to many other areas.
But what I do believe is that as we look at these
alternative forms of energy that are coming online, and you
don't have to look far around this country to see new wind
energy and solar operations popping up all over the place, but
they still represent a very small part of the energy in this
country.
Senator Sanders. That is right. That is right.
But my question to you is why is the Trump Administration
not recognizing that reality, investing heavily in trying to
move us in that direction rather than encouraging more oil and
gas exploration?
Mr. Sheehan. I think they are encouraging those other
energy sources but I think that they're also trying to be
forward looking to say, what do we need ten years from now for
oil in this country?
Senator Sanders. You think that the Trump Administration is
encouraging, is investing, is urging us forward in wind and
solar? Is that what you are saying for the record?
Mr. Sheehan. I haven't seen a back-stepping in those
particular sorts of energy mechanisms, so----
Senator Sanders. Really?
Well then, I think you should examine what your
Administration is doing.
Let me ask the Lieutenant Governor, very briefly, that at a
time when your state, perhaps--and it's a beautiful state. My
God, it is the last natural wilderness that we have. Don't you
think that Alaska should be leading our country in terms of
transforming our energy system away from the products that have
caused the problems that are impacting your state?
Mr. Mallott. Absolutely. We feel it every single day. We
know it.
We have investment in alternative energy. We need to
continue to do so. There were references to wind power. If you
look at wind power and other alternative forms of energy, we
are making those investments. We need to make more, but we also
know that we cannot flip a switch, and that's not a pun, and
turn off our reliance on----
Senator Sanders. But we will never flip that switch as long
we continue investing in oil and gas.
Let me ask one last question, Madam Chair, if I may?
Let me ask Mr. Alexander----
The Chairman. Senator Sanders, you are out of time. We do
have one more panel, and we do have votes coming up at noon.
Senator Cantwell. Let him just finish. We went three
minutes over on two of our colleagues over here. Let him just
ask the question.
The Chairman. If it is a quick question.
Senator Sanders. It is a quick question.
The Chairman. Quick question.
Senator Sanders. I have just one, Mr. Alexander, to
summarize briefly the impact that this drilling will have on
his people's way of life.
Mr. Alexander. Senator Sanders, we believe that drilling in
``lizhik Gwats'an Gwandaii Goodlit'' will devastate us as a
people. And it will absolutely devastate us as a people because
you're talking about 80 percent of the diet of the Gwich'in
people being vadzaih, that Porcupine Caribou herd.
And so, our connection to that is so strong that you're
talking about just an absolute change in the way we live as
people and, you know, what about the next generation? Will they
ever even have the opportunity to learn how to hunt caribou and
to respect it? I don't know. And I'm hoping that you here today
will protect that.
Senator Sanders. Good. Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Sanders.
Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Madam Chairman, thank you.
I want to thank all of you for being here and you can see
this is quite divisive, if you will, but the bottom line is we
live in the real world. We do not live in a fantasy world and
we cannot pick and choose what we would rather have. Really, we
are a country that depends on almost 20 billion barrels of oil
a day. Those are the facts. And we imported oil from 70
countries last year. That is a fact.
I come from the State of West Virginia and it is a state
that believes, really, in an all-in energy policy. It never
hesitated once when this country needed the coal that made the
steel that built the guns and ships that did everything for
this country. You know, our people work and work hard. They
will continue to.
Governor Walker, I thank you for being here. Lieutenant
Governor Mallott, I want you to know you are not the only
Democrat here that believes in an all-in energy policy and
supports ANWR and doing it in a responsible way.
I also know that I voted against the budget because I
thought the budget was just a gimmick to get to a budget
reconciliation which took all of us out of the process.
Democrats cannot participate, have not participated in the
budget process right now for overall tax reform which the
country needs.
But with that being said, I also realize that there is
going to be more fossil used in the world than ever before. All
we can do is find different technologies and different
abilities to use it until we find a technology or a new
industry that will provide a cleaner energy, if it is going to
be fusion or some other form, in the near future.
But right now, the world is using more coal and we are
using more oil. I look at the dependency that we have, and when
you start looking at the security of our nation, the less
dependent that we are on foreign oil, the better we are
strategically and the stronger we are as a nation.
I also noticed that Point Thomson, for the last three
years, the Coastal Plain has already been exporting and is in
development. I think that is being done in an environmentally
sound way, a balance between the environment and the economy up
there. It is within the same ecosystem as 1002.
I understand, Mr. Alexander, and everyone, depending on
what side you are on, there has to be a balance here. I don't
know why we cannot find that balance, why it is always either
one side or the other, why we are divided as a nation, why we
are divided as a people. It always comes down to what side are
you on? I have had people ask me, so, what are your politics? I
said, you ought to ask what is my purpose of being in the
process, the political process. You should care less whether we
are Democrats or Republicans.
I want a country that is strong, and a country can only be
strong if we are energy independent. That is a fact of life.
And if you want to set the technology standards of the rest of
the world, you better develop them right here.
For the last eight years under the previous Administration,
we never developed or basically spent anything on research
trying to find better ways of using coal and oil and natural
gas in a much cleaner way. With that being said, people say
they want all renewables. I said, fine. Tell me what five hours
of the day you want your energy. Tell me what five hours of the
day you want your refrigerator or your heat or your air
conditioner to work because that is really what you are going
to get. And I think, Mr. Sheehan, you related to that.
But if you could briefly, Mr. Mallott, speak on--do you
believe there is a balance, I mean, I don't think that you all
will be representing the great State of Alaska thinking you are
encroaching and changing the lives of your citizens there. Or
have you just basically thrown caution to the wind?
Mr. Mallott. We need balance.
First let me say very quickly, I'm a Tlingit Indian. And
when people ask me to be brief, I'm doing my damnedest.
[Laughter.]
But we need balance. We need to build a future in which
renewable energy sustains our children. It is an absolute high
priority that Alaska recognizes its responsibility for and
will, at every juncture possible, take----
Senator Manchin. Is Alaska developing clean energy with
renewables the way you all are----
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Manchin. ----the way you are extracting----
Mr. Mallott. Yes.
Senator Manchin. ----basically, the resources of----
Mr. Mallott. We have a long way to go.
Senator Manchin. Okay.
Mr. Mallott. We have invested and continue to invest in
alternative energy as a high priority.
Senator Manchin. Mr. Alexander, is there a balance to be
found here where we can preserve the way of life of your
wonderful people but also have energy independence, if we can,
and use the resources that we have? Do you think that is
possible?
Mr. Alexander. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Manchin. Have you made overtures toward that, that
you are trying to find the balance and it has been rejected?
Mr. Alexander. Senator, what I would say is this, is why is
the balance being put on the back of my people?
Senator Manchin. Okay. I am just saying----
Mr. Alexander. And I'm answering your question, Senator----
Senator Manchin. Sure.
Mr. Alexander. ----why is the balance being put on the back
of my people? Because if you take a look at the North Slope
there is plenty of other places to drill as has been mentioned
earlier, plenty of other places. So that's the balance. You
have NPR-A you can drill in. We don't need to drill in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
Senator Manchin. Can I ask a real quick question then, for
the Lieutenant Governor there? Have you all looked at different
areas to support trying to find that balance but protecting
their rights?
Mr. Mallott. Absolutely.
And with a pipeline, the reality being three-quarters empty
with all of the existing areas of exploration and development
and more coming on with recent discoveries, we still are a long
way from being responsive to current national energy needs and
we need to continue to find the ability to achieve national
security, safety in energy, and we need the access to the 1002
Coastal Plain in order to achieve that.
Senator Manchin. Let me just say that my time is up and
thank you, Madam Chairman.
Those of us who come from extraction states have done the
heavy lifting. West Virginia has been heavy lifting for a long,
long time and we continue. Our way of life, also, has been
infringed upon. We think we can do things better but also find
a balance. And all we are asking for is some tolerance here. We
try to find alternatives so that we can respect your people and
your way of life and also balance the energy that we need to
keep this country strong. I think that is a responsibility.
There is nobody in West Virginia that wants to drink dirty
water or breathe dirty air, the same as Alaska.
So if anyone thinks from the public leaders, and all of you
are supporting doing more, as far as an energy resource, energy
production in the most scientific way or the most advanced way
that you possibly can.
I know the footprints as far as horizontal drilling. We
have reduced the footprint in West Virginia. We have been
blessed with a lot of shale gas, and it is unbelievable. We
know we can do it much better, much cleaner, much more
environmentally friendly.
I would urge all of you to try to find that pathway
forward, try to find that balance.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Manchin, thank you.
I appreciate the focus on balance. That is what we try to
do around here.
I spent a lot of time last night reading everyone's written
testimony, and I was struck by a comment that you had included,
Lieutenant Governor, in saying just these words: ``We have
achieved this balance. It is time to permit the exploration and
development. The state has demonstrated that wildlife and
environmental protection can be achieved through 50 years of
development and progress on the North Slope.''
I think it is important to remember that what we are
seeking to do in the 1002 is not something that has not been
done in the North Slope. We have 40 years plus of a track
record up there, 40 years of ensuring that the caribou continue
to move through, that the polar bear are protected, that the
snow geese are protected, that the mitigation that we talk
about has been addressed.
At the same time we have been leading, not only the country
but the world, when it comes to our innovation and our
pioneering with microgrids. I talk about it a lot here in this
Committee.
So much to be proud of there from Alaska's perspective, and
I know that each of you, as you have provided testimony here
today, have contributed to this conversation in a very
important and a substantive way.
Our votes have started. We have two of them.
It would be my intention to thank this panel. Thank you for
your time. This is a long time to be sitting and fielding
questions, so we appreciate that.
We will take a recess, and it is my intention that we will
resume the hearing at 12:30 with the second panel.
Again, thank you to each of you.
The rest can all take a stretch break, and we will be back
at 12:30.
[RECESS]
The Chairman. Welcome back, everyone. I am sorry for the
extra ten-minute delay, but we have finished at least this
tranche of voting and hopefully we will have an opportunity to
get through this last panel with an opportunity for questions
and conclude the hearing before we have another round of votes.
That is the hope here.
This second panel is perhaps more of our technical panel.
We have several witnesses present to help answer questions
about modern development on the North Slope and what it might
look like in the future.
Joining us today is Mr. Aaron Schutt. Aaron is the
President and CEO of Doyon, Limited. Thank you for being here.
You also brought your son with you which is a great educational
opportunity for him, and we appreciate you both being here.
Lois Epstein is with us. Lois has been before the Committee
before. We welcome her back. She is the Arctic Program Director
for the Wilderness Society.
Following Ms. Epstein, we will have Mr. Richard Glenn, also
a frequent flyer here to the Energy Committee. He is the
Executive Vice President for Land and Natural Resources with
the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. It is good to have you
back, Richard.
Pat Pourchot is known to many Alaskans and many here in
Washington, DC. He is the former Special Assistant for Alaska
Affairs at the Department of the Interior during the previous
Administration. Welcome back, Pat.
Last on our panel is Dr. Matthew Cronin. He is a biologist.
He is a former research professor at the University of Alaska,
Fairbanks. Some of us know him as ``the caribou man,'' but
certainly one that is well-versed in the biology of many of
these issues that we have been discussing.
So thank you all for traveling the distance to be here
today. Thank you, not only for your contributions for the
hearing, but also for the good work that you do in your
respective areas.
Aaron, if you would like to lead the panel off with your
comments. Again, please try to stick to five minutes if you
can. Your full statements will be incorporated as part of the
record, and then we will have an opportunity for questions.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF AARON SCHUTT, PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, DOYON, LIMITED
Mr. Schutt. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, members of the
Committee. Do'eent'aa? It's a very great opportunity to be here
to testify today.
I am the President and Chief Executive Officer of Doyon,
Limited. I am Koyukon Athabascan, a Tanana Tribal Member, and a
Doyon shareholder.
Doyon is one of the 13 Native Regional Corporations
established by Congress under the terms of the Alaska Native
Claims Settlement Act and the southern portion of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge lies within our region. Doyon supports
the opening of the ANWR Coastal Plain to oil and gas
development if it can be shown to be consistent with the
protection of the Porcupine Caribou herd.
The Gwich'in people, many of whom are Doyon shareholders,
some here today, rely on that herd for subsistence and cultural
survival. And we encourage the United States Government to
offer the Gwich'in a role in co-management of the Porcupine
Caribou herd, whether or not it opens ANWR to oil and gas
development.
Today, I want to focus my testimony on one of our wholly
owned subsidiaries that operates in the oil and gas industry,
it's Doyon Drilling. We operate on the North Slope with eight
of the most unique and advanced rigs in the industry, and
they're designed especially for the Arctic. Doyon Drilling has
led the industry in innovation and adoption of new technology
over its 40 years of existence. We're proud of that leadership
role as it fits within our corporate value of a commitment to
employee safety and sound environmental practices.
When Congress last debated opening ANWR to oil and gas
development in 2005, supporters made many arguments about the
use of new technology and how it would minimize the impact on
ANWR. Since then, a lot of these claims have borne out in the
industry, and we're going to share some of them today.
A couple are directional, extended reach, multi-lateral
drilling techniques that have been developed and perfected in
that timeframe. Those techniques allow wells to be drilled in
all directions from a well pad, kind of like spokes on a
bicycle wheel.
Directional drilling has been around since the 1970s but at
that time it did not allow the reach that we can now. And so,
you could drill a couple square miles around a pad. And I've
got a figure here that's been shown before in the hearing
today.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
You can see a couple, three square miles using technology
from the 1970s. And fast forward to the one on the far right, a
12-acre pad where a drill rig can reach out and cover 125
square miles. That means that you can space pads in modern
development up to 10 miles apart and that there's little to no
surface impact between those pads. That's a fairly dramatic
shift in technology in that time period.
And I'd like to say that the impact of those technological
changes are not theoretical. I've got another graphic coming up
here.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Doyon's Rig 142 just recently completed a penta-lateral
well in the Kuparuk field on Alaska's North Slope. That's five
production wells drilled from a single surface wellbore. Each
of those penta-lateral wells is now producing from different
reservoir sands through three different fault blocks. The total
drill length of the five wells is over 39,000 feet; 28,000 feet
of that, I understand, is in the production zone.
If Doyon's client had developed these same resources 20
years ago, it likely would have required probably three drill
pads and multiple wells on each of those pads to access the
same resources we were able to access from a single surface
location.
Doyon is currently building an extended reach drilling
rig--also referenced earlier in the hearing, it's Rig 26--that
will be able to reach out even further. That's the 35,000
horizontal feet that was mentioned by several people earlier
today. And that's the capability that allows us to reach out
for the full 125 square miles from a single surface well pad.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
For perspective of those here in the room, Rig 26 will be
able to drill from here on Capitol Hill and hit a target the
size of certainly this room at the National Harbor Resort and
Convention Center on the Potomac River that's six and a half
miles away.
Rig 26 is being developed to allow our client to develop
known, but currently untapped, oil resources from existing
surface infrastructure. In other words, our client won't have
to build new pads, roads, or pipelines on the surface to
produce known oil reserves.
And the changes in the technology have allowed smaller well
pads on the North Slope and they're up to 70 percent smaller
and there are 70 to 80 percent fewer pads since Prudhoe Bay was
developed in the 1970s.
And so, what that looks like is a 19,000-acre footprint
goes down to just a few hundred acres to develop the Alpine
Field on the Western side.
Finally, this has also been referenced. The impact of
exploration on the environment is very minimal. The difference
between exploration and production, you can see here, a
location in the NPR-A with our Rig 141. And then we've got the
summer version of the same location. Senator Sullivan mentioned
this before where there's almost no lasting surface impact from
exploration.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I wanted to close my testimony here by saying how important
oil and gas is to the economy of the state and to our company.
We obviously have a large presence in the Alaska oil and gas
economy. It was developed because it was the available economy
to us as an ANCSA corporation in the 1970s with the development
of Prudhoe Bay.
We're very proud that we employ hundreds of our Alaska
Native shareholders and we do it in an environmentally safe way
and the protection of our employees is paramount, but to also
provide income to our shareholders. A single drill rig, for
example, could have a salary impact of $4 million for our
Alaska Native shareholders per year on those rigs. Those
numbers are not theoretical either. That's the reality we've
had for many years times the number of rigs we have working.
So in short, Madam Chairwoman, we're very proud to be here
today. We're supportive of opening ANWR, but only if we can
assure ourselves of the protection of the Porcupine Caribou
herd, as I mentioned earlier in my testimony.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Schutt follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Mr. Schutt, thank you very much, and we
appreciate the visuals as well.
Let's next go to Ms. Epstein. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF LOIS N. EPSTEIN, ENGINEER AND ARCTIC PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY
Ms. Epstein. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski and
also, though she's not here, to Ranking Member Cantwell,
Senator King and other members of the Committee, for inviting
me to testify at this important hearing on a critical, national
public lands issue.
My name is Lois Epstein, and I am the Arctic Program
Director for The Wilderness Society and my home is in
Anchorage. Our organization's scientists began working in this
region of the Arctic in the 1930s and, as an Alaska-licensed
engineer, I am proud to be part of that legacy.
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a vast wilderness
landscape of tundra plains, boreal forests, dramatic mountain
peaks, and coastal lagoons along the nation's wildest northern
edge. There is no other place like it in America.
For thousands of years the area has been home to Gwich'in
and Inupiat communities and has sustained them. It provides
vital habitat for more than 45 species of mammals including one
of Alaska's largest caribou herds, polar and grizzly bears,
wolves, Dall sheep and over 160 species of birds who migrate
from the Refuge to breed there from all 50 states.
The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of our nation's
National Wildlife Refuge System. The 1.5-million-acre Coastal
Plain is widely recognized as the biological heart of the
Refuge. The Coastal Plain is as important to our nation's
natural heritage as Yellowstone and the Grand Canyon where we
don't choose to drill.
Now, contrast this pristine wild place with oil and gas
exploration and production which is complicated and messy and a
lot has not changed over the years to make it less so. Even the
most well-financed operators have blowouts and spills.
Just this year BP had a production well blowout due to
thawing permafrost, and international well kill specialists had
to fly in to prevent a safety disaster. This week the state is
looking at all wells with similar designs because they are
concerned for the potential for additional blowouts.
In 2012, Rexall had an exploratory well blowout on the
North Slope that spewed roughly 42,000 gallons of drilling
muds. It took a month to plug that well because frigid
temperatures prevented work on many days.
According to the state's spill database which I looked at
this week, there have been 121 crude oil spills on the North
Slope during the past five years, or approximately two per
month. A 2010 state study showed almost five spills each year
on the North Slope over a thousand gallons, and I think it's
important to recognize they're not all small spills.
Oil development infrastructure would sprawl over vast parts
of the Coastal Plain and not be confined to 2,000 acres, as
some have said. The 2,000-acre calculation does not include
roads, gravel mines or pipelines, except for the limited places
where their support posts touch the ground.
There also would be year-round air pollution and noise from
generators, trucks, aircraft and processing facilities, long-
distance pipelines and gravel roads that could deter some
caribou from crossing and cost them energy and wastes from
drilling operations and living quarters that require disposal.
Directional or extended reach drilling, which is not a new
technology, will have these same impacts. Directional drilling
reduces only one concern and that is pad size. Roads and
airstrips are still needed, pipelines are still required and
pollution, industrial noise, and toxic spills are still
inevitable.
Because of higher costs due to longer wells, directional
drilling may or may not be used by industry for exploratory
drilling. As discussed at the May 10, 2011, hearing in this
Committee, oil companies actually prefer not to use directional
drilling for exploratory wells because doing so provides less
technical information about subsurface conditions.
Directional drilling rhetoric is, in some respects, a
Trojan horse for access to the entire Arctic Refuge Coastal
Plain for oil production. Neither the 2,000-acre provision nor
directional drilling would prevent the entire Coastal Plain
from becoming industrialized.
And Arctic Refuge drilling is not needed. Trans-Alaska oil
pipeline flow is up six percent during the past three years and
the Alaska Department of Natural Resources expects the
pipeline's throughput to continue increasing through the late
2020s. And I have a figure--Figure 2 in my testimony shows
that.
Significant new discoveries not on federally-protected
lands, including in the National Petroleum Reserve, will
increase production and this new technology that we've heard
about is also very useful in existing oil fields to increase
production.
Notably, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is not necessary to
ensure that the Trans-Alaska oil pipeline remains viable for
decades.
The most recent CBO report on Arctic Refuge leasing was
issued with limited documentation in February 2012. The report
estimates $5 billion in bonus bids for Coastal Plain leases
split between the state and federal governments. Crude oil
prices were approximately twice as high in 2012 as they are
now, making Arctic Refuge drilling significantly less
attractive today and for the foreseeable future. It is highly
unlikely revenue and bonus bids on Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain
leases will come anywhere close to CBO's or other's estimates.
Since 2000, the average North Slope onshore bid has been just
$34 an acre.
In summary, conclusion of Arctic--inclusion of the Arctic
Refuge in the budget is less about meeting revenue targets and
more about approving a controversial, problematic measure to
open the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain to oil development without
the possibility of a filibuster. It would be a black mark for
Alaska and this Congress with future generations to
industrialize and essentially destroy such a unique place.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss this unique and
important region. I am happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Epstein follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Epstein.
Mr. Glenn, welcome.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR
LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION
Mr. Glenn. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Committee members.
I'm happy to see that the other half of the Arctic Coalition of
America is here. So thank you for staying for the hearing,
Senator King.
My name is Richard Glenn. I'm the Vice President of Lands
for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). It's an
Alaska Native Corporation created by Congress in 1971. It's
headquartered on the North Slope and it includes villages such
that extend from the west to the east in the Arctic region of
Alaska from Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk,
Utqiagvik, Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk Pass. North Slope
village residents there have always depended upon subsistence
resources from the land, the rivers, and the ocean.
I'm a tribal member. Mr. Schutt is a tribal member. Matthew
Rexford who spoke before me is a tribal member. Our Lieutenant
Governor is a tribal member, and I was particularly stung by
the Ranking Member's comments that said she didn't see tribal
members. Maybe she just didn't find enough tribal members that
agree with her position. I hope that you hear from all of the
tribal members of the State of Alaska, the majority of whom
support safe, responsible exploration and development in ANWR.
I'm also not here to debate the sacredness of the land on
either side of the Brooks Range, the north or the south. For
us, all the lands are sacred. They contain the bones of our
ancestors. And I'm not talking about ancient people. I'm
talking about people in living memory. We didn't start burying
our dead until around the 1920s. So my great grandparents were
the first generation of folks who were buried right after the
flu epidemics swept through the region. Before those days the
tradition was to leave the residence, however temporary it was,
where the person died. So ancient sod houses, up until the
early 1900s carry the bones of our people. And some of my
ancestors' bones, my grandmother's, my grandfather's
grandmother, are in Prudhoe Bay. Others are scattered along the
Coastal Plain from the Canadian border to Point Hope.
Our people are named after the places. The places are named
after the people. Some of it is state land, some of it is
federal land, some of it is native-owned land, but it's all
equally sacred.
Yet, we depend on that land for development. We depend upon
that land for food. And I don't wish to trivialize anyone's
dependence on the resources because ours is equally as
important.
ASRC, as a corporation, owns a piece of this heritage,
92,000 acres of land on the Coastal Plain of ANWR, along with
Matthew Rexford's Village Corporation, the Kaktovik Inupiat
Corporation. These lands hold resource potential for oil and
gas development.
I'm a geologist by training. I help drill and develop
natural resources on the North Slope. I know the practices
related to drilling, and I've seen the evolution over the past
50 years and 30 or so years of my own professional life from
really simple drilling, cementing, and production to the ornate
and efficient diagrams that you've seen here on the posters
that Mr. Schutt presented so effectively. The reduced footprint
is real. Hundreds of square miles drained by tens of acres of
development.
Senator King asked how many wells are we talking about? How
much surface impact? We have real world answers to those
questions. They're here at the table. They're here in the
audience.
In the west end of today's exploration on the Colville
River Delta and just to the west, where the Native folks from
another village 100 miles from Kaktovik also own some resource
potential. Five hundred wells have been drilled down to depths
around 8-9,000 feet and radiating outward as far as five or six
miles.
On these 500 wells, production wells, injector wells,
they're done from four basic, central facilities for drilling,
covering maybe 300 acres of land. So now we're talking real
world examples, real world numbers of wells for at its peak
hundreds of thousands of barrels per day in production. That's
the kind of development that we envision moving into the
Coastal Plain of ANWR.
This is a cartoon. This diagram shows dramatic
exaggerations. If you'd follow the scale of this map, the dots
themselves are two miles across each. The well symbols
themselves are three miles high. The pipelines, if they're
shown, as they've shown on this map, that pipeline, it would be
a quarter mile wide. This is not realistic. If you want to see
realistic development, look at realistic numbers, go to the
areas of modern exploration and development.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
And yet, one thing we learned in production is production
declines. It starts at a peak and begins a decline. And the
lion in the room on Alaska production is Prudhoe Bay. The
Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk River oil fields were super giant oil
fields and we're on the shoulders of their decline and the new
discoveries, as significant as they are and as thankful as I am
that they have been discovered, they can't match the slope of
the decline. They only change its slope. It's still a decline.
Meanwhile, 92,000 acres and the million or so acres of the
Coastal Plain of ANWR, set aside just for its energy potential,
lies fallow and we can't even test their potential unless
Congress acts.
We think that the Alaska Native landowners of Kaktovik and
the folks from the Arctic Slope region cannot realize their
right to economic self-determination if Congress fails to lift
the prohibition on safe and responsible exploration and
development of the Coastal Plain. So Congress needs to act.
My organization was an agreement made between Congress and
the tribes of Alaska. We didn't ask for it. In fact, we fought
against it, but we're living with the results. And so, in our
region we have a braided relationship of municipalities,
tribes, and ANCSA corporations. We're all welded together,
braided together, like a rope. So you can't separate tribe from
corporation and you can't separate our mother's languages from
the language of discourse we're using here today. I could speak
in the language of my mother and it would be gibberish to you
and, frankly, disrespectful to everybody.
The only indigenous people that should be listened to the
loudest are the folks from Kaktovik. And today's hearing to me
shows there's a lack of attention paid to them. Listen to what
they're saying. They need an economy. They need development in
their area. They want to have the freedom to do what the rest
of the country seemingly takes for granted. We're talking about
reliable power and water and schools and the ability to use
sanitation that keeps their kids healthy. I strongly recommend
that the Committee look at the testimony of the folks from the
village of Kaktovik.
If you look at the tribal folks from throughout Alaska, we
don't agree 100 percent, but the majority do agree. We believe
that wildlife and development can coexist. They already do
today. In fact, we're collaring caribou that are calving in the
area of current development around Prudhoe Bay and the Kuparuk
River. This is the Central Arctic Caribou herd.
The Alaska Fish and Game, U.S. BLM, and North Slope Borough
Wildlife biologists are collaring caribou that are calving in
the area of infrastructure and then migrating South to Arctic
Village to be hunted by our Gwich'in neighbors to the south. So
we already are hunting caribou who are calving in areas of
development. I've had the honor of taking some of you on tours
of North Slope development. We see caribou there underneath
pipelines, sometimes underneath facilities like man camps and
hotels. And when they're trying to get away from summer
mosquitos, caribou will go anywhere. They'll be laying down
right on the tundra next to the buses that are taking the
codels through the area. The caribou aren't afraid.
The Chairman. Richard, we are going to have to ask you to
wrap up.
Mr. Glenn. The caribou aren't afraid because they're not
being hunted. They're not being hunted there. So the wildlife
and infrastructure can coexist.
We speak in favor of a safe and expeditious opening of the
1002 Area. It will be good for our region, our state, and our
country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, and hopefully we will have an
opportunity to ask more so that you can continue.
Pat--Mr. Pourchot, welcome.
STATEMENT OF PAT POURCHOT, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR ALASKA AFFAIRS, ANCHORAGE
Mr. Pourchot. Chairman Murkowski, Members of the Committee,
thank you for the privilege to testify today on the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge.
Today I am testifying as a retired public servant and a
private citizen. My past ``lives'' over 45 years in Alaska have
included serving in the Alaska State Legislature, as
Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources,
work for the Alaska Federation of Natives and Audubon Alaska,
and most recently, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the
Interior for Alaska Affairs. I would confess from the onset
that I have worked for politicians and organizations that have
favored drilling in the Arctic Refuge and for those that have
opposed exploration and development. Since my participation as
a Congressional staffer in the passage of the Alaska National
Interest Lands Conservation Act, or ANILCA, 40 years ago, I
have witnessed the decades of debate on the issue of permitting
oil and gas leasing and development in the Refuge.
As an Alaskan, I appreciate the economic benefits that
might accrue from oil development in the Refuge. But I have
come to the conclusion that the last piece of America's Arctic
is more appropriately left as wilderness as a far more valuable
legacy for future generations.
I have had the opportunity to hike the mountains and float
wild rivers in the Refuge, to observe herds of caribou on the
Coastal Plain, witness dozens of polar bear on the Beaufort Sea
coast and fly over thousands of snow geese gathering on the
Coastal Plain of the Refuge. There can be no denying that the
Arctic Refuge is one of the most special and spectacular places
on the planet.
America's Arctic Coastal Plain stretches over 600 miles
from the Canadian border westward to the Chukchi Sea. Most of
this area is available for oil and gas development. In the
Central Arctic, oil development on state lands surrounding
Prudhoe Bay sprawls for over 100 miles along the Beaufort Sea
coast. Further west, leasing and development are proceeding in
the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. And now
it is proposed to explore and develop the last remaining part
of the Arctic Coastal Plain, our national heritage.
Some argue that the 1.5 million acres of Coastal Plain
proposed for development in the Refuge represents only a small
fraction of the Refuge and development would not significantly
impact the overall Refuge, but the narrow Coastal Plain is the
biological and ecological ``heart'' of the Refuge. The Coastal
Plain is an integral component of the Refuge's ecosystem and
provides key habitat for calving and migrating caribou,
waterfowl, nesting shorebirds, and denning sites for polar
bear.
The resources report called for in section 1002 of ANILCA,
issued in 1987, found that the ``1002 Area is the most
biologically productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife
and is the center of wildlife activity.''
And why are we proposing to develop the last remaining part
of the Arctic Coastal Plain? Are we at war and need more oil
for our nation's security? Have we run out of oil, gas, and
gasoline for our homes and cars? Do we really think that
leasing revenues will significantly help our federal and state
budgets? The answer is clearly no, to all these questions. And
the answer should be no to the question of allowing oil and gas
development in the Refuge.
I was greatly moved by the documentary, ``The National
Parks: America's Best Idea.'' In the late 1950s a dedicated
group of Fairbanks residents, including the Fairbanks Garden
Club, had a ``best idea'' to protect wild public lands spanning
the Brooks Range in the northeast corner of Alaska. In 1960 the
nine-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Range was created
under a land order by Secretary of the Interior Seaton for the
purpose of ``preserving unique wildlife, wilderness, and
recreational values.'' This ``great idea'' was renewed in 1980
with the passage of ANILCA in which the Range was expanded and
renamed the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Its purposes were
laid out in statute ``to conserve fish and wildlife populations
and habitats in their natural diversity.''
Ken Burns' documentary vividly demonstrates how the heroes
of our nation's history are those who had the foresight to
protect and defend America's cultural and natural treasures for
the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. Those folks of
Fairbanks helped protect something of preeminent value to the
nation, a generation ago, for those of us today. Conversely,
history and our children will not honor those that would deface
one of America's most treasured landscapes. The Arctic Refuge
should be the very last place we allow oil development.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pourchot follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Pat.
Dr. Cronin, welcome to the Committee.
STATEMENT OF DR. MATTHEW A. CRONIN, BIOLOGIST AND FORMER
RESEARCH PROFESSOR, ANIMAL GENETICS, UNIVERSITY OF ALASKA
FAIRBANKS
Dr. Cronin. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, Senator King and
Committee for allowing me to testify. I'm Matt Cronin, and I'm
a biologist. And today I'll speak mostly about caribou and oil
fields and the science.
The science is large. The literature on the science is very
large, and I'll provide a brief summary here orally and in my
written testimony there's many citations to scientific papers.
This summer I was lucky enough to watch Senator King at the
symposium on the impacts of an ice diminishing Arctic. I
watched it online. Senator Murkowski, you gave comments at the
symposium. And Senator King said something very insightful to
me as a scientist. He said, ``We can't make good policy without
good data.'' And then he said, ``Give us the science in a way
we can understand it and absorb,'' and that nothing could be
more important. So I understand that as non-scientists you need
scientists to tell you things in a way you can understand.
There's two problems. One is the science. The literature is
very large. And the other is separating the actual data and
science from interpretation. And that's our job as scientists
is to clearly differentiate those.
I feel it's my duty to inform all of Congress and all the
American people of the science and then policy will come from
that. Science doesn't make policy, it informs policy. And that
was a major point of Senator King's comments at that symposium
that I really appreciated.
With regard to caribou in the oil fields, there's many
references in my written testimony and within the references,
many references.
I'll hit on a few key points. First, there is impacts to
individuals and then there's impacts to populations, an
important concept with regard to the North Slope caribou herds.
Herds are not the same as populations, as we typically speak
about them in biology. Herds you define by calving areas. The
population, all four North Slope herds, to some extent, are the
same population. There's immigration between them. There's
overlap on winter ranges. So the herd censuses are good in
terms of quantifying the numbers of animals calving in the
area, but the population is much more dynamic and affected by
many factors.
The studies have shown some level of displacement of
calving cows from roads, but it's not unequivocal. In the case
of those studies, 44 percent of the calves observed were within
the first four kilometers of the roads which was the area
claimed to be displacement. And then a replicate study showed
most of the calves, the higher density, was within the first
kilometer. The point is the literature is not clear cut. Calves
don't always avoid oil field infrastructure, the cows having
the calves. In the summer, the caribou use the oil fields quite
extensively, as Mr. Glenn said. They go up on the pads and
under pipelines for insect relief. The caribou herds themselves
are quite dynamic. If you look at the charts in my written
testimony which are the graphs of the populations, the Central
Arctic, the Porcupine, Teshekpuk, and Western Arctic herds,
you'll see dramatic variation over time. And natural
populations in general, and caribou in particular, have very
large population fluctuations naturally due to many things,
winter conditions, predation, and immigration and emigration,
as I mentioned.
So the biology is complex and the literature is large. The
Alaska Department of Fish and Game stated in a newsletter last
year, ``The impact of oil infrastructure on the Central Arctic
herd is also being considered in a recent decline, but is not
thought to be contributing to the decline since the herd grew
substantially during peak oil development.''
Several of the papers that I co-authored address this point
up through the early 2000s and it's important to look at the
original literature and the references therein.
I believe that the status of caribou in the North Slope oil
fields has been good. They continue to use the oil field areas
as habitat. The herd has grown substantially since the oil
fields were developed.
As the oil fields were developed, new technologies and
insights resulted in the much smaller area of development and
mitigation measures such as elevating pipelines, separating
pipelines from roads, have been implemented that have helped a
lot with passage through the oil fields.
I think oil and gas development in the 1002 Area can be
done with limited impacts by using proven mitigation measures.
I believe it can be done with minimum impacts to caribou as
long as mitigation measures are implemented.
One, of course, because calving is a main concern, is very
simple. You simply limit activities during the calving period.
You limit traffic. You limit aircraft. You limit noise and you
get local knowledge to help you manage in the local area.
I've also done research on polar bears and other Arctic
animals that I'd be happy to provide information if anyone is
interested. And feel free to ask questions.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Cronin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Cronin.
Thank you to each of you for your testimony here this
afternoon. We will now have an opportunity for some questions.
It was stated by my Ranking Member at the outset of the
Committee that in her view things have not changed, not much
has changed. And you know, I think some of the arguments
against ANWR, that is true. Those arguments are still the same
that many of us recall from a long time ago.
But what I have heard today is a recognition that we really
have seen change in the seven years since this Committee has
last considered the prospect for the 1002 Area. The technology,
as Mr. Schutt outlined, has changed considerably.
But I also think that the data, the science, the research
that has been collected over the 40-some-odd years that we have
been operating up North can better inform us. And you mentioned
mitigation, Dr. Cronin, you mentioned those technologies. Mr.
Glenn, you speak of the caribou and the fact that the caribou
are around the camps. They are on the roads. They are not
deterred by manmade activities. Now we recognize that that is
not while they are calving. That is clearly a more sensitive
time.
But I would like a little more discussion here, just in
terms of how we are utilizing the science that we have
collected to be better stewards of the wildlife, the infrared
that is being used to detect polar bears in a den and how we
are avoiding contact or disturbance and again, some of the
other mitigation measures.
The proposal was made that perhaps there might be some form
of co-management of caribou if we are to move forward with the
1002 Area. I would like to open up that discussion, if I may.
Let's start off with you, Richard.
Mr. Glenn. Thank you for the question, Senator Murkowski.
As Dr. Cronin stated, the issue of timing comes out
strongest and the exploration, of course, of the Coastal Plain,
would happen in the winter which is not a calving season. And
so, there's already----
The Chairman. Before you move on, I think it is important
for colleagues to understand when we talk about exploration in
Alaska in the wintertime, it is not because we like to be out
in the cold and the dark.
Mr. Glenn. Right.
The Chairman. It is because we are required to do
exploration during this period. If you might address that as
well.
Mr. Glenn. The Navy began exploring for oil and gas on the
North Slope in the 1940s and they discovered very quickly that
the summertime which is when a lot of exploration happens in
warmer climates, is not the time to try to move about on the
tundra because everything you do that needs heavy equipment
gouges itself into the thawed-out surface.
And so, over a few short years of learning the hard way,
the industry tailored its practices to operate in the winter
when the ground is frozen so that even if there was no snow
cover and no ice road, for example, the tundra kind of protects
itself by being in a frozen state. That's just the general
paradigm of exploration the way that it exists today.
Flash forward to today. In addition to those hard lessons
learned, they developed ways to explore with seismic and
drilling on ice roads and ice pads that further insulate the
surface from the harmful effects of summertime disturbance of
the tundra. So the calendar already dictates that the machinery
is going to be around when the animals are less likely to be
there.
Now my upbringing is from the central part of the Arctic
Slope where sometimes caribou are around year-round. I've
hunted--in fact, those of us who live from Fairbanks northward,
we're caribou connoisseurs. We know when the marrow changes
flavor. We know when the fur is the best. We can tell the
difference between pregnant and non-pregnant cows, for example.
And calving is a special time. And if you're a caribou hunter
you know that a mother caribou that's already carrying a calf
inside her, she wants to lay down. And she'll lay down anywhere
as long as she's not being threatened by something. And it's
the pregnant caribou that shows the least, I don't know. Dr.
Cronin might know better than me, but I've hunted a lot of
caribou and when they run away from you, the pregnant cows are
the ones that still stay laying on the ground or for some
reason run away and come back. And so, the nature of a caribou
carrying her calf is different than regular caribou behavior.
All of that is this May/June timeframe when all of the
exploration tools should be out of the theater.
Once development happens, if development happens, the
facilities and the pipelines are constructed to minimize their
effects. The pipelines are elevated so caribou can walk
unimpeded underneath the pipelines. And the facilities are
concentrated under small, focused pads. There's a lot of stuff
happening on one piece of gravel, and the caribou are free to
do whatever they need to do on the undisturbed tundra that
surrounds the pads.
The Chairman. Thank you. I am over my time.
Let's go to Senator King.
Senator King. Thank you.
Dr. Cronin, it is intimidating that you cite my own words.
Literally, scores of people watched that presentation online.
[Laughter.]
So let me go back to some of the questions that I asked
before and, Mr. Schutt, maybe you can answer this. I think I
have discerned the answer. It is not 2,000 contiguous acres, is
that correct? It is 2,000 acres made up of lots of little
pieces.
Mr. Schutt. It would certainly not be 2,000 contiguous
acres.
Senator King. So, the drilling is not limited to one 2,000-
acre square in this large area?
Mr. Schutt. I have to say I've never seen the geology. It's
not publicly available to people like me. But the size of oil
fields is many thousands of acres or hundreds of thousands of
acres, if you're talking about billions of barrels of potential
oil and to recovery that there would certainly be several small
pads, maybe one or two medium-sized pads. We're talking 10-acre
drill sites or 12-acre drill sites and maybe a few central
drill pads that are a couple hundred acres that have the----
Senator King. But there would have to be, I presume, to get
the oil out, there would have to be pipelines, right, from each
pad, each drill site?
Mr. Schutt. For sure you have to have a way to transport
from the drill sites to some central location.
Senator King. And the way to transport is a pipeline.
Mr. Schutt. Yes, sir.
Senator King. That would be easier to say than a way to
transport.
So we are talking about a pipeline. In terms of the 2,000
acres we are only talking about the feed of the pipeline. Is
that correct, not the shadow of the pipeline that is above the
ground?
Mr. Schutt. I don't know that part, but I heard that for
the first time today.
Senator King. And how many wells would you be talking about
in an area like this? Someone mentioned 500 wells. Is that--
what are we talking about here?
My calculation was a couple thousand to get out ten billion
barrels over ten years.
Any----
Mr. Schutt. I'm not the right person to answer that.
Senator King. Do you know what the production is of that,
of your well, 1H-102, the one you had the chart on?
Mr. Schutt. That well was finished in the last month, so I
don't have production data. It's not my well either, it's our
client's well. We drilled it for them.
Senator King. So give me a production for a typical well
that you have in service.
Mr. Schutt. Again, we drill a lot of wells for our clients,
and I'm not the one to ask. There's a huge range. Some of the
wells we drill are not production wells. They're injectors or
other types of wells.
Senator King. Well, you see what I am trying to get at here
is how many wells are we talking about in this space? Is it 10,
100, 1,000, 2,000?
Mr. Schutt. It would be hundreds over time to develop a
billion-barrel field, if that's what's there. If it's much
smaller, it could be 50 wells.
Senator King. Okay.
I would point out, Mr. Glenn, you characterized this as a
cartoon. This shows 50 wells, and I don't take much from the
size of the little well thing, but that only shows 50 wells.
If we are talking about 100 or 500, you are talking about a
lot more dots on this map. Is that correct?
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Schutt. Senator King, we can drill 50 wells from a 10-
acre drill pad.
Senator King. Okay, so you are considering a multiple, the
chart, that you are calling those separate wells? Is that
correct?
Mr. Schutt. I'm not----
Senator King. You are saying each line is a separate well,
that those--I am just trying to understand this.
Mr. Schutt. Which chart?
Senator King. You have one drill pad. The picture you put
up of the--you said you can do ten laterals.
Mr. Schutt. That was a penta-lateral well.
Senator King. Right, which is five.
Mr. Schutt. Which means there are five production wellbores
off of one single surface location.
Senator King. Right.
Mr. Schutt. Each single well off of the surface.
Senator King. So each one of those you would call a well
even though there is only one surface?
Mr. Schutt. That's correct.
Senator King. Five.
Mr. Schutt. Technically for those in the industry, those
are five wells. Yes, sir.
Senator King. Well, I think it is important as we work
through this to try to understand if we are talking about ten
billion barrels over some period of time, what is the period of
time and what does that imply in terms of the number of wells
and how many penta-laterals are there? I am trying to determine
what we are really talking about here on the face of the Earth.
And that is what I am searching for. I think you answered my
question. The calving period is the spring or the summer?
Dr. Cronin. Yes, sir. The end of May and first few weeks of
June.
Senator King. Another question, I guess Mr. Schutt, you are
the guy to try to answer this.
Is there anything special about this 1002 Area in terms of
oil and gas? There is this--I looked on the map that Senator
Sullivan gave us and there is this huge area that is set aside
for oil and gas drilling, much larger than this area. Do we
have indications that this is an extraordinarily rich area that
we are talking about, this part of ANWR?
Mr. Schutt. Senator, I'm probably not the expert you need
on that question. Although, certainly the outcrops of the
sandstone reservoirs that are producing at Prudhoe Bay and the
source rocks that caused the oil to be at Prudhoe Bay are
similar or the same.
Senator King. What I am getting at is we are talking about
a special area here that has been set aside for a long time,
and we are saying we need to drill here. And what I am trying
to determine is, is this area particularly productive or could
we not drill in some of the other areas that are literally
called the oil and gas drilling area?
Mr. Schutt. I'm going to start with a slight aside,
Senator.
Senator King. Yes.
Mr. Schutt. I've heard people refer to a special area which
I do not want to minimize at all, but many areas of Alaska are
special. Those of us who grew up in different parts of Alaska
call our own section of Alaska, God's Country, without
minimizing the fact that all of Alaska is God's Country.
Senator King. You are incorrect on that. My town in Maine
is truly God's Country.
[Laughter.]
I know exactly--I take your point though, thank you.
Mr. Schutt. With regard to the question about oil
prospectivity, there is a difference between what the USGS says
about the NPR-A and the likely fields you might find there
through exploration and the scale of what might be available in
the 1002 Area and they're orders of magnitude different.
Senator King. I think that is important for us to know.
Thank you.
Dr. Cronin. Yeah, Senator King, I was just going to add
that I think USGS would be a good source for very specific
information on the resources that they predict either in the
1002 or the NPR-A.
Senator King. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. I am going to defer to my colleague who
has been here waiting.
The Chairman. Okay. Alright.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
The Chairman. We will next turn to Senator Cortez Masto.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Let me just follow up on the line of questioning from
Senator King, because I am now getting a little confused.
So if I understand this correctly, section 1002 we are
looking at is opening up the Coastal Plain for drilling and
that is 1.57 million acres. Is that true? So I am--and that is
yes? Your understanding? Yes. So I am confused as to where the
2,000 acre limitation comes from. I think this is referring to
a House Energy bill, H.R. 6, which is not before us, and so I
am not sure what all of that means. But I do want to get a
better understanding if we are talking about drilling in 1.57
million acres, which is the Coastal Plain. I do want to get a
better understanding of how many pads we are talking about. How
many drill pads?
And I think, from my perspective, it would help to have a
better understanding in the NPR-A. How many drill pads are
there right now and how many more potentially can you--how much
more drilling can occur there at the NPR-A and why isn't that
occurring instead of opening up the Coastal Plain? And I will
open that up to whomever we want to start with, please.
Ms. Epstein. Thank you for the question, Senator.
I work both on the NPR-A as well as the Arctic Refuge. And
in the NPR-A, historically, there have been both high numbers
in terms of how much likely oil and lower numbers more
recently.
But now there is a reassessment going on and there have
been some new discoveries. That's why I made the point that, in
fact, the slope of the oil going through the Trans-Alaska
pipeline is going up. There are new discoveries and there are
new ways of getting into existing reserves that are increasing,
which is good. It's good for Alaska. I'm an Alaskan. I think
that's good. Drill in less sensitive areas as you both are
referring to.
USGS is looking at the NPR-A right now, and there's a lot
of activity around that in terms of coming up with a new
estimate which may actually show quite a bit. There's not much
data for the Arctic Refuge right now.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
There is potential still to--we are waiting for the data
for the NPR-A to make that determination.
How many drill pads are there now?
Ms. Epstein. There's the CD-5 one and there--Conoco
Phillips is working on Greater Mooses Tooth, a new project and
then they have a new discovery that's just beginning the
permitting process in the Willow Area, but it could be quite
large. They're trying to delineate that.
And one more very quick point. We had quite a bit of
discussion about balance on the last panel and the fact that
the North Slope is a large landscape and the points you're
making about drilling in the NPR-A, we think that really does
represent balance. That's where some areas are open for
development. Some areas are not because they are quite
sensitive. Certainly, there's a lot going on in the state lands
right now and that's also considered by us and others, less
sensitive. And that's fully appropriate.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
And then just to get a better understanding--and thank you
for the graphs because that helps really, kind of, put it in
perspective, what we are talking about.
If I understood correctly, each pad has the potential of
having more than one drill hole or whatever you want to call
it, right? And then from that drill hole comes the various
wells and there could be more, four to five or six wells from
just one borehole. Is that correct?
Mr. Schutt. You're asking very technical questions, and I
don't have any technical----
Senator Cortez Masto. I am just going off your graphs. So
that is what it looked like to me.
Mr. Schutt. That's one.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
And so, each drill pad--and so, you talk about the size of
your drill pads and over the course of time with new
technology, they decreased in their footprint. And it looks
like from 65 acres now to potentially 12 acres.
So how many of those boreholes could potentially come from
a 12-acre pad? And if you don't--you may not technically be
able to answer that, and I will figure out another way to get
that answered. I am just curious if you know.
Mr. Schutt. I sound like a lawyer here, but it depends, but
you can assume from a 12-acre pad that dozens of surface
boreholes can be drilled and then, if appropriate, multi-
laterals out of those that would count as additional wells.
So, you know, somewhere between 10 and 100, depending on
the appropriateness of the design, just as a rough ballpark.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
Please go ahead if you have any comments.
Mr. Glenn. Thank you. You gave half of the answer that I
was going to give, but also it probably helps to put in
perspective the order of events.
If the Coastal Plain is open to exploration, seismic
exploration starts and it comes and it goes away. And then
targets are established. And then exploration drilling occurs
on ice pads, and the rules about drilling exploration wells are
to plug and abandon it when you're done, cut the casing below
the surface so it disappears when you're done with exploration.
In the event of discovery, then you move into the paradigm
that you're talking about with pads on the ground and radiating
outward from the reservoir as discussed by Aaron.
So there's things that have to happen. Exploration should
occur everywhere and then we should make reasonable decisions
about development when it happens. So there are two different
aspects to drilling, exploration then development.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I notice my time is up, I appreciate
that, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Senator Heinrich.
Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am going to go back to this chart again because while it
may be just, you know, effectively it is just an illustration.
But having some experience with development in the Permian
Basin and the San Juan Basin, and having seen the development
around Prudhoe Bay, I would just note for my colleagues that
with, at least the ungulates that I am familiar with, like mule
deer and antelope, it is not the well pads that typically are
the substantial part of the disturbance and which can impede
the movement of wildlife. It is everything that comes with
those well pads: it's the roads, it's the gravel mines, it's
the electrical transmission, it's the pipelines. And the more
linear barriers you put in the face of any sort of migration,
the less likely that migration is to occur.
So rather than look at an illustration, I would just
suggest, maybe, all of us or our staff can do a little search
on Google Earth and go look at what Prudhoe Bay looks like,
having flown over that because, you know, it is not the well
pads that got my attention. It is all those other linear
obstacles to migration.
I have a question for Ms. Epstein. One of my frustrations
with this process is that we are doing this through budget
reconciliation and in the context of a budget bill, rather than
a regular legislative process. I assume we are doing that
because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to pass this
as stand-alone legislation and get 60 votes for it.
But one of the requirements of that budget process is that
we produce $1 billion of new revenue over the next two years. A
new report out this week casts some serious doubt on whether
that is realistic.
Can you walk us through some numbers and talk about what
would be necessary, in particular, in terms of reasonable bonus
bids because that is the most likely income to come in, in the
first ten years, and whether or not we could hit that target or
not, or what a realistic estimate might be?
Ms. Epstein. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
I would say that I share your frustration about the speed
of this process and the inability to get all the information
that decision-makers need, the Senate needs, to make a
responsible decision.
Just as an example, I have--my colleague, a senior
ecologist, has quite a number of responses to Dr. Cronin's
testimony that I think would be very beneficial and we will
submit that to the Committee. And that would be important so
that you would have a full picture of the actual nature of the
caribou development and relationship, as well as polar bears.
Senator Heinrich. You have to add that to the record.
Ms. Epstein. Yes, thank you. In terms of directly answering
your question, I can partly answer.
With the price of oil being what it is now, in the $50 a
barrel range, Alaska is not terribly attractive in new areas to
oil companies and, at the same time, we have lots of shale oil
development in the Lower 48 that is more inexpensive. So the
idea that they would pay extra and go for bonus bids to be sure
they had a piece of this very controversial area that a lot of
companies would actually even shy away from is unlikely.
I just participated in a National Academy of Sciences oil-
related committee on Thursday and Friday and I talked to some
of my industry colleagues about the Arctic Refuge. And one
comment I heard was that if this was likely to be as
productive, you know, there would have been a lot more
activity, more wells previously.
Senator Heinrich. My calculations are that it would have to
be a little over $1,300 an acre in terms of bonus bids which is
about six times that historical average.
Ms. Epstein. Right.
Senator Heinrich. I don't have a ton of time left. I guess
I will just end with this.
I guess we have to come up with $1 billion, but we produce
a lot of oil and gas in the State of New Mexico. There are some
places we will never, ever drill: the Valle Vidal or the Bosque
del Apache National Wildlife Refuge. I think we need to be
careful about what doors we are opening today because we will
not be able to undo this once a substantial reserve is found.
And to find that $1 billion, I would never advocate mining
for uranium in the Grand Canyon or doing geothermal resources
in Yellowstone, and having been to the Refuge, it is a wildlife
refuge. That is why it is called the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. It is not a petroleum reserve and we should remember
that.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Duckworth.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Chairwoman Murkowski and
Ranking Member Cantwell, for convening this very important
conversation.
I also want to thank our witnesses who traveled far to join
us for today's hearing.
One of my priorities in the Senate is working to expand
economic opportunity for working families in Illinois and
across the nation. I know that every state faces unique
challenges when it comes to supporting existing industries and
creating new jobs, and I recognize how important the oil
industry has been to the Chairwoman's home State of Alaska.
However, when it comes to dramatically expanding oil
extraction operations in areas like the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, I have serious questions concerning the
potential for catastrophic incidents that could inflict
irreparable harm. If the tragedy of Deepwater Horizon should
teach us anything, it is that difficult and tough questions
must be addressed before approving any massive expansion of
drilling operations. For when we are discussing oil extraction
at the scale and vision in this Republican budget, it is not a
matter of if an oil spill will occur, but rather a matter of
when and how bad will it be.
We have heard a lot about advances in directionally
drilling today. Setting aside the engineering jargon, Ms.
Epstein can you explain in plain English if it is more
dangerous to drill in the Arctic and why?
Ms. Epstein. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
The Arctic is remote. There aren't a lot of additional
resources if there are problems. Those have to be brought in,
flown in. That has happened when we've had a blowout. Just this
last spring, BP, a well resource company, had something
unexpected happen, the permafrost around an old well, so you
think that they knew what was going on was fine. And that
resulted, not in an enormous oil spill, but quite a serious
safety situation which is of concern to operators and their
employees. Absolutely.
So we have had situations where it is frigid and cold, and
you can't work then. So you need a lot of very specific Arctic
expertise. It is, very much, an area where you need to know
what you're doing.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
I understand that the State of Alaska completed a report in
November 2010 which reviewed over 6,000 North Slope spills from
1995 to 2009. Analysis of this report indicates there was an
oil spill of 1,000 gallons of oil or more nearly every two
months from 1995 to 2009.
Ms. Epstein, when the oil spills and we have to clean it
up, again, is the oil spill cleanup more challenging in the
Arctic compared with drilling on land elsewhere? And if oil
spilled in the area of debate today, what would the effects of
that spill be?
Ms. Epstein. Thank you for that question.
It would depend a bit about the time of year. If you had an
oil spill in winter and it landed just on frozen tundra you
might be able to clean it up quickly. If you had a spill that
ended up in a waterway, however, and flowed into the, say the
Colville River and onward into the Beaufort Sea--tremendous
impacts to the ecosystem. These are fragile areas. The water is
only flowing some of the year so that's when all the biology,
all the activities take place. It would be quite damaging.
Senator Duckworth. Is there new legislation we could
consider that would make drilling in the Arctic safer and less
prone to spills?
Ms. Epstein. The best we could do is tweak it.
We're going to have spills. We're going to have--it's a
complicated industry, hard to be on top of everything all the
time. At the same time, companies are trying to minimize costs.
So it's very tough. We can't prevent spills. There's no
evidence that--I don't think you'd find anyone from the
industry that said, that can say we will stop all spills.
Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
Mr. Alexander, I just want to start off by saying that the
Alaskan First Peoples are some of the--have served our United
States military at rates per capita far greater than so many of
our other population and with extreme courage and dedication
and just want to thank all of the representatives of the First
Peoples here today for that.
Mr. Alexander, is your community alone in its concerns or
are your fears shared by other tribes? Can you please remind us
what the stakes are if your people can no longer depend on
caribou and subsistence hunting?
The Chairman. Senator?
Senator Duckworth. Oh, I am sorry.
The Chairman. Mr. Alexander was part of the first panel.
Senator Duckworth. Oh, sorry.
The Chairman. He is not with us. Perhaps you can ask that
question of him after the hearing, but I apologize for that.
Senator Duckworth. No worries. Thank you.
With that, I yield back. I only have 16 seconds anyway.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Let's go to Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. I would yield to Senator Franken.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you to the Ranking Member and the
Chair.
Dr. Cronin, in your research looking at caribou populations
you found that they were not significantly impacted by the
presence of an oil field road, is that correct?
Dr. Cronin. Yes.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
For this research did you ever receive any funding from oil
companies?
Dr. Cronin. Yes.
Senator Franken. Okay.
Do you think receiving funding from oil companies could
bias the outcomes of your research?
Dr. Cronin. No, sir.
Senator Franken. Did you ever consider that the same oil
companies that funded your research would use your work as
justification for drilling and that might have been a
motivation of theirs?
Dr. Cronin. Well, first of all, the data we used in--
probably the paper you're talking about is a 2004 paper with
Noel as the Senior Author. We used the Alaska State Department
of Fish and Game data in addition to the data collected by our
group.
The oil industry funded studies, sometimes as a requirement
for permits or for stipulations for operating after the permits
were granted, and they wanted to get pre- and post-development
data in some cases or in other words, in other cases, just
post-development to, in this case, look at the distribution of
caribou.
So whether it was used to justify future drilling, it was
always done with the intent of publishing in peer-reviewed
scientific literature, which we did, and all the references
that I gave in my written testimony are such.
Senator Franken. Okay, well the manuscript says it was
developed with support from Exxon Mobil and BP Exploration. Is
that right?
Dr. Cronin. Well, depending which paper, sure.
Senator Franken. Okay.
Thank you.
Ms. Epstein, could you talk about why this Refuge was
preserved in the first place? What are the distinguishing
factors that make the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain different
from other areas on the Arctic Coastal Plain, and why does that
matter?
Ms. Epstein. Yes, thank you, Senator Franken.
One important characteristic is the Coastal Plain there is
very narrow compared to further West where the Prudhoe Bay
field is and that means that the area that the caribou go to
birth their calves is smaller. There aren't alternatives and
they go there because they receive insect relief and they also
are able to avoid predators. They can see them coming, in other
words. Beyond that, it is an intact ecosystem with the full
range of species. It's a national treasure in a lot of ways
that many refer to as America's Serengeti.
I, myself, was there just once, not related to work. I was
there recreationally, and I did see enormous numbers of caribou
and really felt that I saw one of the world's great migrations
happening that I felt very privileged to see. And there are few
special places like that in the world. It was quite beautiful.
I included a personal photo in my testimony.
Thank you.
Senator Franken. Well, you are right. The Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge is home to many unique plant and animal
species, including critical habitat for the polar bear which is
listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act and, of
course, for the Porcupine Caribou that is essential, as we
heard from the last panel, to the Gwich'in people.
Mr. Pourchot, as climate change continues to affect Alaska,
how important will pristine areas like the Arctic Refuge be to
wildlife and to indigenous people?
Mr. Pourchot. Thank you, Senator.
I think we heard from the other panel that climate change
is very real and very dramatic in the further you move north,
particularly on the North Slope of Alaska.
And I think, again, other panelists have described climate
change impacts on many things, of human life and wildlife. And
I think that in the areas that Ms. Epstein has described for
the Coastal Plain is, for example, a very finite calving area.
The effects of climate change on that, you know, could be
substantial.
And I think the answer, if there is one to your question,
is really, we don't really know. And I think that's one of the
issues surrounding this debate is in the absence of knowing
things as science or fact or what the impacts may be. I think
that argues for a cautionary approach.
Senator Franken. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Well, Mr. Pourchot, I definitely agree. I
find the debate that we have had so far interesting just
because when I think of Alaska, I think of its great beauty
and, you know, I think of John Muir and his exploration of the
glaciers at Glacier Bay that made it popular and what it is
today. Yet those glaciers are receding. I don't know if anybody
is ready to put up a sign saying cruise ships don't bother
anymore because I am pretty sure Alaska still wants them to
come, but yet, that is what we are continuing to threaten here
by continuing to proceed.
You are undermining not only this wildlife refuge, but you
are undermining a very important way of life that is even
larger than just the wildlife refuge. To me, I hold that dear
but then again, those are very important elements of the
northwest economy. Just because I represent the State of
Washington I guarantee you, Patty Murray and I do not get to
decide what happens at Mount Rainier National Park just because
it is in our state. We do not get to decide that. And so, when
federal land is designated, yes, we have a lot of discussion
with a lot of locals, but no, you do not get to make the
decision just because you represent that state.
So I wanted to ask you, there has been so much discussion
about whether this wildlife refuge, in its purpose that it was
created for, can coexist with oil development on the Refuge.
Can it, yes or no?
Mr. Pourchot. I would answer no and, as I said in my
testimony, when you look at the purposes in statute that
establish the Refuge that included wildlife in their natural
diversity, that references to wilderness. Similar, the
Executive Order establishing the range, the predecessor of the
Refuge in 1960, talks about those same sorts of values in
outstanding resources.
When you look at the 1987 report that was authorized by
Congress for the 1002 Area, very emphatic references to
wilderness resources, to wildlife resources. Those were also
brought out in the more recent Comprehensive Conservation Plan,
CCP, that was just completed for the Refuge in 2015 after four
years of effort to look at the new science, look at management
options, look at the purposes of the Refuge and the Refuge
Administration Act and they reiterated again it was very
important those natural resources, particularly wildlife and
wilderness, that were really exemplified by the Refuge. And
that recommendation which, it was interesting that Deputy
Director Sheehan did not mention, was for recommendation for
wilderness designation for the Coastal Plain of the Refuge.
Senator Cantwell. Yes, a nice way to say about his
testimony was that he was very selective.
But we have sent a letter to the Secretary and this should
be clear. We should just get a yes or no answer from him about
the purposes.
You gave me one today and the answer is no, and I think
that is what any scientist would tell you.
So what I object to, besides the sham process that we have
been going through here to hurry this through with 51 votes, is
that it just ought to be clear. If people want to open the
Arctic Wildlife Refuge, you should just admit you are going to
destroy the wildlife refuge.
You can't sit here and tell our colleagues and try to deny
it by stacking a hearing and not giving us information and not
having the scientists, that somehow that is not the case,
because it is.
So you can decide you don't want the Refuge. I disagree. I
think it is one of the most unbelievable things that we have on
Planet Earth, not just in the United States, on Planet Earth.
It is that intact. And what we are going to learn from it and
continue to preserve from our heritage and our past and the
wildlife that is there is just unbelievable.
People spend thousands of dollars to go to the Serengeti in
Africa to look at it. Did anybody in Alaska ever think that in
the near future, as the Arctic ice continues to melt that there
wouldn't be people who would want to come up and visit it in a
more recreational environment? To me, it is well worth
preserving.
So we will see what happens when the Secretary answers our
letter, but you can't have both and that is what scientists are
going to tell us. And so people should just choose if they want
to drill or they want to destroy, drill and destroy.
I would preserve because, as I've said before, I guarantee
you we are all going to be gone in the future and it is going
to be whether this great pristine place continues to give the
next generation such a great, unbelievable look at what has
existed on our planet before.
And I agree with the Gwich'in people that it is spiritual.
It is spiritual, and we should preserve it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The Chairman. Well, we clearly disagree that this is an
either/or proposition. It absolutely is not.
And for those of us who call Alaska home, to suggest that
we would despoil our environment for short-term gain, I think,
is offensive. As an Alaskan, I am offended by that.
I respect every Alaskan's opinion. I respect the fact that
there are those who come from a different homeland than I
might, being born down in the southeast, but I respect their
views and opinions.
I think we recognize that as Alaskans we have options and
our options, I think it would be at the beginning of the day
and the end of the day, we all want to get to the same place,
that we have an economy that will allow us to stay in the most
amazing place. And whether your home is Utqiagvik or Kaktovik
or Ketchikan, we want to be able to remain there, but you have
to have the ability to stay there. And when you live in a cold
place, you need to be able to have the means to keep warm.
I think about Matthew Rexford's family and the generations
that came before him, just one generation prior, it was a life
and a lifestyle that was pretty harsh and pretty difficult and
literally trying to find firewood that would come down the
river to keep the family home warm.
And so, again, as we think about the choices that we have
as Alaskans, we have always been in this place. We have always
been in a place where we are resource rich with a small
population. Our costs are high. But the effort to make sure
that we can continue to remain in this amazing place has to be
one where we work to find the balance, where we ensure that we
have the level of food security.
If you are from Fort Yukon or Kaktovik, you are going to
rely on the caribou or the whale and probably will for
generations to come, as long as we care for the land and the
waters. And this is our challenge. This is our charge.
I do not think any one of us wishes to be the one that says
that we allowed rape, pillage, and ruin on our land for short-
term gain. That is not what this is about.
I think people forget that for 40 years now, 40 plus years,
we have been exploring. We have been producing. We have been
giving revenue and jobs and opportunity to Alaskans and to the
country. And we have done so in a way that everybody still
wants to come to Alaska. Those cruise ships and people want to
come to Alaska. So if we have ignored our environment, that
certainly is not apparent.
And so, we do require the highest standards, I believe, in
the country; I believe, in the world. And we do that for good
reason because when the exploration winter period is over we do
not want to see the tracks on the tundra if the winter trail
led to a place that was not going to be productive.
We are making sure that we are using our smarts and our
intelligence and all that we have to develop the technologies
that make some of these questions hard to answer. How can you
predict how many pads we are going to need?
Forty years ago, the pad in Prudhoe was pretty significant
and remains today; but nobody, nobody is talking about building
another Prudhoe because we believe that even with Prudhoe-like
resources, our technology will allow us to access this in a way
that is more consistent with our respect for the environment.
To be able to shrink that footprint, to be able to do so much
more with a smaller area and to recognize what that delivers to
us. So we do not know how many pads. We are not sure how many
wells necessarily because the technology is evolving every
single day.
To look, Aaron, at the diagram and to hear your testimony
that you have one series of wells that is just in production
now, one month ago, but knowing that by 2020, what you will be
able to access will be so much more than what you have been,
what you have put in place today, this is where the technology
is taking us.
We talk about the shale revolution here in the Lower 48 and
what that has done to allow us a level of energy independence
that we never thought possible. It is not because that resource
just materialized overnight in places where it was not, it was
always there but we just use our smarts and our technology to
allow us to access it better and more efficiently. That is what
we are doing. That is what we are proving out in Alaska.
And Senator Heinrich challenged us all. Go to Google Earth
and take a look at Prudhoe Bay. Yes, Prudhoe Bay is up there.
It is still a 65-acre pad. It is. But that is technology from
40 years ago. That is what it looked like 40 years ago. That is
like telling you to stick with the same phone we were using 40
years ago and compare it to what we are using today.
The statement was made that nothing has changed with the
ANWR debate, and I disagree so, so, so strongly with that. The
technology has changed. Our ability to access and understand
the science and the data and the research that we know and the
effort that we are making, led by Alaskans who care to not only
protect the environment, but to protect the animals, the
wildlife, the waterfowl.
Richard, your family has been up on the North Slope for
generations and on your mother's side for hundreds, if not
thousands of years. I bet you still feel awe and wonderment
when you see those caribou come through, thousands at a time.
It is amazing. It is magical, and it is spiritual. And our
challenge, our challenge, is to allow that to continue, not
only for the benefit of the caribou, but for the people who
live there. I just feel like so much of this discussion has
taken place in the absence of those who live there.
And so, I was actually going to ask more questions, but I
think we have probably taken as much time as was important to
lay the record down here today. I do hope that colleagues
recognize this is not an effort to do some secret maneuver in a
back room. If that were the case, we would not have had a
public hearing for five hours, televised, for all the world to
see. If that were the case, we would not have an open markup,
like we will. None has been scheduled yet, but we will have
that. And we will have an opportunity to weigh in as lawmakers
on whether or not we should keep that commitment, the
commitment that the Governor and the Lieutenant Governor
reminded us of, that commitment that when this 1002 Area, when
this Area was specifically set aside for the opportunity to
pursue exploration and development of our oil and gas
potential, provided that certain conditions were met and the
Congress approves.
Well, we have gone through this battle many times, as
Congressman Young reminded us, 12 times. I believe that we are
at that place that the Lieutenant Governor has reminded us,
that we are at that place where we have met that balance in
that our technology is allowing us to do things that were once
just unimaginable. You could not even imagine being able to
drill down here at the center of the Capitol and be able to
reach an area out by the National Harbor. This is not drilling
rhetoric as has been suggested. This is not theoretical. This
is actual application. We are making it happen.
I think that is what our colleagues need to appreciate and
to recognize is that change has happened for the better
allowing us to be able to be more responsible as we access our
resources, but to do so in a way that allows not only for the
jobs and opportunity for Alaskans but to address the national
security issues that Senator Sullivan has raised, to address
the environmental concerns, to address our energy security
needs, and to do so in a manner that allows us, as the United
States, to lead, not only leading with access to a resource
that we want, but leading in a way that allows for our
innovation, our really pioneering in an area, is recognized.
So I thank those of you who have joined us. I want to
acknowledge you, Governor Walker, for remaining through the
duration of this hearing. And the Lieutenant Governor, I think,
making sure that this conversation is heard loud and heard
clearly, enables us, as Alaskans, to speak with even greater
voice and greater clarity.
So I thank you for your time.
With that, ladies and gentlemen, we stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:10 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED
----------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
November 1, 2017
Dear Member of Congress:
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a part of God's creation
that stands alone in its wilderness, ecological integrity, and
beauty. This sacred landscape is also home of the Gwich'in, a
Alaska native people who depend upon the Porcupine caribou herd
for their daily subsistence. The possibility of oil exploration
in the Refuge jeopardizes the ecological integrity of the
Refuge and the way of life of the Gwich'in people.
The exploitation of fossil fuels in the Refuge will contribute
to climate change and threaten the ten thousand year-old
traditions that the Gwich'in people depend upon to survive. The
faith community's decades long commitment to protecting the
Arctic Refuge is inspired by our dedication to defending all of
God's creation, including the fundamental rights of the
Gwich'in people.
As members of the faith community, we ask you to grant the
Arctic Refuge the strongest possible protection and keep
drilling in the Arctic Refuge out of the budget process. It is
our hope that you will join us in recognizing that such a
precious gift deserves our best efforts at stewardship and
preservation by doing all that you can to safeguard the
renowned and sacred wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for current and future generations.
Sincerely,
Sister Janet Korn
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Mary Ann Binsack
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Deirdre Hetzler
Roman Catholic
Fairport, NY
Barbara Kozlowski
Sisters of Mercy
Buffalo, NY
Norine Truax, RSM
Sisters of Mercy
Buffalo, NY
M. Grimes
Sisters of Mercy
Hamburg, NY
Sister Mary Schimscheiner
Sisters of Mercy
Buffalo, NY
Sister Kathy Sisson
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Laurie Orman
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Mary Ellen Twist
Sisters of Mercy
Buffalo, NY
Sister Nancy Whitley, RSM
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Deacon William Coffey
Roman Catholic
Macedon, NY
Kathy Pease
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
William Irwin
Roman Catholic
Elmira, NY
Sister Nancy O'Brien
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sheila Geraghty
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Miriam Nugent
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Joan Sherry, RSM
Sisters of Mercy
Orchard Park, NY
Sister Margaret Deegan
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Susan Cain
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Sally Maloney
Sisters of Mercy
Buffalo, NY
Sister Lucetta Sercu
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Sister Marilyn Williams, RSM
Sisters of Mercy
Rochester, NY
Patricia Bell
Sisters of Mercy
Webster, NY
Sister Cristel Mejia
Sisters of Mercy
Buffalo, NY
November 1, 2017
Dear Member of Congress:
The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a part of God's creation
that stands alone in its wilderness, ecological integrity, and
beauty. This sacred landscape is also home of the Gwich'in, a
Alaska native people who depend upon the Porcupine caribou herd
for their daily subsistence. The possibility of oil exploration
in the Refuge jeopardizes the ecological integrity of the
Refuge and the way of life of the Gwich'in people.
The exploitation of fossil fuels in the Refuge will contribute
to climate change and threaten the ten thousand year-old
traditions that the Gwich'in people depend upon to survive. The
faith community's decades long commitment to protecting the
Arctic Refuge is inspired by our dedication to defending all of
God's creation, including the fundamental rights of the
Gwich'in people.
As members of the faith community, we ask you to grant the
Arctic Refuge the strongest possible protection and keep
drilling in the Arctic Refuge out of the budget process. It is
our hope that you will join us in recognizing that such a
precious gift deserves our best efforts at stewardship and
preservation by doing all that you can to safeguard the
renowned and sacred wilderness of the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for current and future generations.
Sincerely,
Sister Kathleen Ann, RSM
Sisters of Mercy
Erie, PA
Elsie Heaney
Daylesford Abbey
Paoli, PA
Sister Placidus McDonald
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Andrea Likovich
Sisters of St. Francis
Aston, PA
Sister Bridget McNamara
Sisters of St. Francis
Reading, PA
Sister Susan Fitzpatrick
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Rita Harasiuk
Institute of the Sisters
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Phyllis Thompson
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Maria Zamberlan
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Mary Felice Duska
Sisters of Mercy
Erie, PA
Sister Kathi Sweeney
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Malachy O'Neill
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Bonnie Heh
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Georgine Scarpino
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Natalie Rossi
Sisters of Mercy
Erie, PA
Sister Patricia Hespelein
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Marie Immacule Dana
Sisters of Mercy
Pittsburgh, PA
Sister Rita Panciera
Sisters of Mercy
Erie, PA
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]