U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

26–388 PDF 2017

PROMOTING ONSHORE OIL AND 

GAS DEVELOPMENT IN ALASKA 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 

Serial No. 115–17 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Greg Gianforte, MT 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jimmy Gomez, CA 

Todd Ungerecht, Acting Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

PAUL A. GOSAR, AZ, Chairman 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, CA, Ranking Democratic Member 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul Cook, CA 

Vice Chairman 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Tuesday, July 18, 2017 ............................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Gosar, Hon. Paul A., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Arizona ........................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Lowenthal, Hon. Alan S., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of California ................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Dixon, Gary, Vice President, International Brotherhood of Teamsters 

Local 959 Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska ......................................................... 24 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 26 

Glenn, Richard, Executive Vice President for Lands and Natural 

Resources, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, Anchorage, Alaska .......... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 8 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 12 

Jepsen, Scott, Vice President, External Affairs and Transportation, 

ConocoPhillips Alaska, Anchorage, Alaska ................................................. 38 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 39 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 50 

Pourchot, Pat, Former Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior 

for Alaska Affairs, Anchorage, Alaska ........................................................ 31 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 36 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON PROMOTING ONSHORE OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT IN 

ALASKA 

Tuesday, July 18, 2017 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:41 p.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Paul Gosar [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gosar, Gohmert, Lamborn, Wittman, 

Hice, Bergman, Bishop; Lowenthal, Tsongas, Beyer, and Soto. 

Also present: Representative Young. 

Dr. GOSAR. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

will come to order. 

The Subcommittee is meeting today to hear testimony on 

promoting onshore oil and gas development in Alaska. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority Member, 

and the Vice Chair. This will allow us to hear from our witnesses 

sooner, and help Members keep to their schedules. 

Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all Members’ opening 

statements be made part of the hearing record, if they are 

submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Dr. GOSAR. Today, the Subcommittee will examine opportunities 

to promote oil and gas development in the state of Alaska. Alaska’s 

North Slope contains some of the Nation’s most abundant resources 

of oil and natural gas, including two of the Nation’s highest producing oil fields. This region has the capacity to provide the state 

of Alaska, as well as the Lower 48 states, with affordable, reliable 

energy for years to come. Unfortunately, the United States continues to rely on oil sourced from foreign nations to fill its refineries, while much of Alaska’s North Slope remains untapped. 

The oil and gas industry in Alaska serves as a source of employment, revenue, and affordable energy for local communities 

throughout the state. In fact, roughly one-third of the jobs in the 

state are supported by the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately, decreased rates of production, low oil prices, and over-regulation have 

negatively impacted the industry and, by extension, the Alaskan 

economy. 

Under the Obama administration, millions of acres in the North 

Slope were made off limits to oil and gas development. This 

2 

egregious Federal over-reach, coupled with burdensome and costly 

permitting processes, have constrained exploration and production 

in this resource-rich region. 

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, in the northwestern corner of the state, was set aside for oil and gas development by the Federal Government in the 1920s. Industry has 

recently announced discoveries and promising new projects within 

the NPR-A, indicating that there are significant untapped 

resources within the Reserve. 

However, the Obama administration’s 2013 management plan 

made half of the Reserve’s 22 million acres unavailable to leasing, 

precluding the development of some 350 million barrels of oil and 

45 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Where development is allowed, 

companies operating in the NPR-A continuously encounter costly 

and unnecessary permitting delays on new projects. Each month 

that new projects are delayed means lost revenue, taxes, and jobs 

for the people of Alaska. 

The policies of the previous administration have not only negatively impacted the energy economy, but have resulted in avoidable 

infrastructure challenges. Needlessly restricting responsible new 

development has resulted in less production, forcing the TAPS 

pipeline to operate in conditions it was never designed to handle. 

Although the pipeline operators have responded to these challenges 

and have kept the oil flowing, these challenges will remain a threat 

to this critical piece of energy infrastructure until a more sustainable level of throughput is achieved. 

In the state’s northeast corner, the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, or ANWR, is also known to contain considerable oil and gas 

resources. When Congress established the Refuge in 1980, it recognized the potential for oil and gas development in the Coastal Plain 

region, or 1002 area. 

This region, which spans just 1.57 million acres of the 19 millionacre Refuge, was specifically set aside by Congress for an assessment of its recoverable resources. The Reagan administration noted 

the region’s capacity for robust production and recommended full 

energy development of the 1002 area. While this area contains 

ample oil and gas resources, energy development is currently prohibited and only Congress can authorize oil and gas development 

and activity. 

Energy development in the state of Alaska is a key component 

of achieving American energy independence. Enabling new opportunities for exploration and development, especially in the NPR-A 

and in ANWR, will create thousands of good jobs, generate billions 

in revenue for the state of Alaska and the Federal Government, 

and bring us closer to achieving energy independence. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses representing the Alaska 

Native community, industry operators in the North Slope, and the 

Alaska labor force. These witnesses will provide testimony reflecting on the benefits that the oil and gas industry provides to Alaska 

Native communities, while also balancing the need for reasonable 

environmental and species protection. 

We will also hear about current projects and opportunities for 

further development in the North Slope, as well as regulatory obstacles imposed by the Federal Government. 

3 

Finally, we will discuss the importance that robust oil and gas 

production has for the Alaska labor force, and how reduced industry activity impacts jobs in multiple sectors of the state’s economy. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Gosar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. PAUL A. GOSAR, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Today, the Subcommittee will examine opportunities to promote oil and gas development in the state of Alaska. Alaska’s North Slope contains some of the Nation’s 

most abundant resources of oil and natural gas, including two of the Nation’s highest producing oil fields. This region has the capacity to provide the state of Alaska, 

as well as the lower 48 states, with affordable, reliable energy for years to come. 

Unfortunately, the United States continues to rely on oil sourced from foreign 

nations to fill its refineries, while much of Alaska’s North Slope remains untapped. 

The oil and gas industry in Alaska serves as a source of employment, revenue and 

affordable energy for local communities throughout the state. In fact, roughly onethird of the jobs in the state are supported by the oil and gas industry. Unfortunately, decreased rates of production, low oil prices, and over-regulation have 

negatively impacted the industry and by extension, the Alaskan economy. 

Under the Obama administration, millions of acres in the North Slope were made 

off limits to oil and gas development. This egregious Federal over-reach, coupled 

with burdensome and costly permitting processes, have constrained exploration and 

production in this resource-rich region. 

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, in the northwestern corner of 

the state, was set aside for oil and gas development by the Federal Government in 

the 1920s. Industry has recently announced discoveries and promising new projects 

within the NPR-A, indicating that there are significant untapped resources within 

the Reserve. However, the Obama administration’s 2013 management plan made 

half of the Reserve’s 22 million acres unavailable to leasing, precluding the development of some 350 million barrels of oil and 45 trillion cubic feet of gas. Where development is allowed, companies operating in the NPR-A continuously encounter costly 

and unnecessary permitting delays on new projects. Each month that new projects 

are delayed means lost revenue, taxes, and jobs for the people of Alaska. 

The policies of the previous administration have not only negatively impacted the 

energy economy, but have resulted in avoidable infrastructure challenges. 

Needlessly restricting responsible new development has resulted in less production, 

forcing the TAPS pipeline to operate in conditions it was not designed to handle. 

Although the pipeline operators have responded to these challenges and have kept 

the oil flowing, these challenges will remain a threat to this critical piece of energy 

infrastructure until a more sustainable level of throughput is achieved. 

In the state’s northeast corner, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, is 

also known to contain considerable oil and gas resources. When Congress established the Refuge in 1980, it recognized the potential for oil and gas development 

in the Coastal Plain region, or 1002 area. This region, which spans just 1.57 million 

acres of the 19 million-acre Refuge, was specifically set aside by Congress for an assessment of its recoverable resources. The Reagan administration noted the region’s 

capacity for robust production and recommended full energy development of the 

1002 area. While this area contains ample oil and gas resources, energy development is currently prohibited and only Congress can authorize oil and gas development activity. 

Energy development in the state of Alaska is a key component of achieving 

American energy independence. Enabling new opportunities for exploration and development, especially in the NPR-A and in ANWR, will create thousands of good 

jobs, generate billions in revenue for the state of Alaska and the Federal Government, and bring us closer to achieving energy independence. 

Today, we will hear from witnesses representing the Alaskan Native community, 

industry operators in the North Slope and the Alaskan labor force. These witnesses 

will provide testimony reflecting on the benefits the oil and gas industry provides 

Alaskan Native communities, while also balancing the need for reasonable environmental and species protections. We will also hear about current projects and opportunities for further development in the North Slope, as well as regulatory obstacles 

imposed by the Federal Government. Finally, we will discuss the importance robust 

oil and gas production has for the Alaskan labor force and how reduced industry 

activity impacts jobs in multiple sectors of the state’s economy. 

4 

Dr. GOSAR. The Chairman now recognizes the Ranking Minority 

Member for his statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to 

thank all the witnesses, first, for being here, particularly since 

many of you traveled quite a distance to be here today. And I 

would just like to preface what I say by saying we may all be passionate up here and we may differ on our priorities about onshore 

oil and gas development. I would like to say I plan to continue the 

collegiality which has been promoted by the Chairman on this 

Committee, and I appreciate that, that we differ from each other, 

which we did also with the past Chairman, also, and anybody else 

who aspires to be Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Oil and gas development in Alaska is not an 

easy issue to grapple with. It is also not an easy thing to actually 

do. The North Slope of Alaska is one of the most remote corners 

of our Nation, with the only car or truck access being one lonely 

400-mile gravel road. 

Most of the region, which is larger than the state of Minnesota, 

has only 9,000 residents, and is only accessible by airplane. It is 

vast and, for many of us in the Lower 48, unbelievably wild. For 

months, there is no sunshine, and temperatures plunge well below 

zero. In the summer, an amazing array of animals populate the 

lakes and the tundra of the North Slope: caribou, migratory birds, 

bears, wolves, and many more. The Native people, who have lived 

here for more than a millennia, depend upon these animals for 

their food and for their culture. 

But despite the sense of rugged wilderness, the region is also tremendously fragile. The climate is changing faster in the Arctic than 

anywhere else on the planet, and the impacts are dramatic. The 

loss of sea ice is well known. The two smallest Arctic ice caps ever 

recorded occurred in the past 5 years, and this year could easily 

be the smallest yet. 

Less ice means a less protected coastline, more vulnerable to 

waves and storms that erode the land at a tremendous rate. Warmer temperatures lead to melting permafrost, invasive species, 

changed migration patterns, and fires. And these are all being 

seen, not simply predicted far into the future. 

And in the middle of this wild, fragile, and rapidly changing environment is one of the largest oil fields in North America. We 

have already sacrificed the area around Prudhoe Bay to our nearly 

insatiable thirst for oil. A network of drill pads, roads, and pipelines criss-cross the tundra for over 100 miles, and it is still growing. Much of this development has occurred on state and tribal 

lands. The Obama administration also gave the green light to the 

first commercial development on Federal lands. 

But it is acknowledged that there have to be some limits. There 

has to be a balance, a balance between development and conservation. There may be areas that are appropriate for drilling, but 

5 

there are also areas that must be protected, particularly in an area 

like the Arctic. 

The Obama administration’s 2013 integrated management plan 

for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, the NPR-A, reflects 

that vision of balance. Over half of the Reserve, containing an estimated three-quarters of the economically recoverable oil, is made 

available for development. And slightly less than half of the 

Reserve is protected, including the vital area around Teshekpuk 

Lake, which is a critical calving area for the Teshekpuk caribou 

herd, and home to numerous species of birds during the summer 

months, including raptors, waterfowls, and shorebirds that migrate 

from as far as South America. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration, in its quest for energy 

dominance, appears ready to upset this balance and open the entire 

North Slope to unfettered development. Not only is the 4-year-old 

management plan for the NPR-A going to be rewritten, but the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is also at risk. The Coastal Plain 

is often called the biological heart of the Refuge, providing essential 

habitat for polar bears, the porcupine caribou herd, and over 250 

species of birds. 

The irreversible damage we could inflict on this area by drilling 

on it is disproportionately high compared to the amount of oil we 

could possibly extract. It simply isn’t worth it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lowenthal follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for being here, particularly since many of you 

traveled a very long way to be here today. 

Oil and gas development in Alaska is not an easy issue to grapple with. It is also 

not an easy thing to actually do. The North Slope of Alaska is one of the most remote corners of this Nation, with the only car or truck access being one lonely 400- 

mile gravel road. 

Most of the region, which is larger than the state of Minnesota but has only 9,000 

residents, is accessible only by airplane. It is unbelievably vast and for many of us 

in the Lower 48, unbelievably wild. For months there is no sunshine and temperatures plunge well below zero. In the summer, an amazing array of animals populate 

the lakes and the tundra of the North Slope: caribou, migratory birds, bears, wolves, 

and many more. 

The Native people who have lived there for millennia depend on these animals 

for their food and for their culture. But despite the sense of rugged wilderness, the 

region is also tremendously fragile. 

The climate is changing faster in the Arctic than anywhere else in the world, and 

the impacts are dramatic. The loss of sea ice is well known. The two smallest Arctic 

ice caps ever recorded occurred in the past 5 years, and this year could easily be 

the smallest yet. 

Less ice means a less-protected coastline, more vulnerable to waves and storms 

that erode the land at a tremendous rate. Warmer temperatures lead to melting 

permafrost, invasive species, changed migration patterns, and fires—and these are 

all being seen, not simply predicted for far in the future. 

And in the middle of this wild, fragile, and rapidly changing environment is one 

of the largest oil fields in North America. 

We have already sacrificed the area around Prudhoe Bay to our nearly insatiable 

thirst for oil. A network of drill pads, roads, and pipelines criss-crosses the tundra 

for over 100 miles, and it is still growing. Much of this development has occurred 

on state and tribal land. The Obama administration gave the green-light to the first 

commercial development on Federal land. 

6 

But it also acknowledged that there have to be limits. There has to be balance— 

a balance between development and conservation. There may be areas appropriate 

for drilling. But there are also areas that must be protected, particularly in an area 

like the Arctic. 

The Obama administration’s 2013 integrated management plan for the NPR-A 

reflects that vision of balance. Over half of the Reserve, containing an estimated 

three-quarters of the economically recoverable oil, is made available for development. And slightly less than half of the Reserve is protected, including the vital 

area around Teshekpuk Lake, which is a critical calving area for the Teshekpuk 

Caribou Herd, and home to numerous species of birds during the summer months, 

including raptors, waterfowl, and shorebirds that migrate from as far as South 

America. 

Unfortunately, the Trump administration, in its quest for energy dominance, 

appears eager to upset this balance and open the entire North Slope to unfettered 

development. Not only is the 4-year-old management plan for the NPR-A going to 

be rewritten, but the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is also at risk. 

The Coastal Plain is often called the biological heart of the Refuge, providing essential habitat for polar bears, the porcupine caribou herd, and over 250 species of 

birds. The irreversible damage we could inflict on this area by drilling on it is disproportionately high compared to the amount of oil we could possibly extract. It simply isn’t worth it. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the balance of my time. 

Dr. GOSAR. Do you know they have a special type of animal 

called the Alaskan mosquito up there. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. They do. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes, they will just carry you away. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Big mosquito. 

Dr. GOSAR. They are. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Very big. 

Dr. GOSAR. I will now introduce our witnesses. 

First, we have Mr. Richard Glenn, Executive Vice President for 

Lands and Natural Resources, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; 

Mr. Gary Dixon, Vice President, International Brotherhood of 

Teamsters, Local 959 Alaska; Mr. Pat Pourchot, Former Special 

Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska Affairs. 

Did I say that right? OK. 

And Mr. Scott Jepsen, Vice President, External Affairs and 

Transportation, ConocoPhillips Alaska. 

I want to remind the witnesses that under our rules, they must 

limit their oral statements to 5 minutes, but their entire statement 

will appear in the record. 

Our microphones are not automatic, so you have to push the 

button to be able to speak. 

You will actually see some lights. For the first 4 minutes it will 

stay green, then turn to yellow. When you see the red, summarize 

and close; just remember that your full testimony will be part of 

the record. 

I will allow the entire panel to testify before questioning the 

witnesses. 

The Chairman now recognizes Mr. Glenn to testify for his 

5 minutes. Thank you. 

7 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC 

SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Mr. GLENN. Thank you, Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member 

Lowenthal, and members of the Subcommittee. My name is 

Richard Glenn. I serve as Executive Vice President of Lands and 

Natural Resources for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 

(ASRC). 

Background on this corporation is included in my written testimony, but in short, ASRC is 1 of the 12 land-holding regional 

Native corporations established by Congress in 1971 by the Alaska 

Native Claims Settlement Act. ASRC’s region, where I come from, 

is located in this northern region of the state described by you 

both. The residents are largely In ̃upiat Eskimos, and comprise also 

the shareholder owners of ASRC. 

For many, the Arctic environment is a distant and forbidding 

place. But for us, it is our home. The presence of the oil and gas 

industry is the economic base for what have become improvements 

to our cities, towns, and villages. Our people, therefore, as the 

Ranking Member said, depend upon a healthy environment to support our subsistence needs, but we also depend on a healthy energy 

industry to provide the tax base that fuels the North Slope 

Borough Government, our local county government, to create these 

important quality-of-life improvements to our communities. 

Many in Congress are under the misguided notion that onshore 

development somehow harms fish, wildlife, and water resources 

there. This would be of great concern to us, because we depend on 

those very animals. No matter how many images that we provide 

of caribou, ducks, fish, and polar bears unharmed and undisturbed 

near oil field infrastructure, hunting and harvesting our wildlife 

does require room and open space. Our region is large enough to 

support both development and subsistence. 

Currently, resource development is the only viable industry in 

our region. It builds the schools for our children and enables us to 

have clean water and flush toilets: things that the rest of the 

Nation takes for granted. We have to cultivate the presence of industry in our region with care and good practices, and this is best 

accomplished by maintaining stable policies and responsible, reasonable conditions. If we do this, resource development will limit 

itself, while yielding an economy upon which almost every Alaska 

village depends. 

ASRC owns 5 million acres of land in this region, and they are 

highly prospective for oil, gas, and minerals. Some of the lands are 

very distant from today’s development, and some are located right 

in the exploration fairway that we are discussing today. For example, ASRC’s ownership in the Alpine and related oil fields is in the 

Colville River Delta, whose ownership we share with the local village and the state of Alaska. And this trend continues on into 

Federal-owned lands. 

The royalty benefits from the Alpine fields and from fields yet to 

produce represent tens of millions of dollars of benefits per year to 

ASRC and its shareholders over the lifetime of production. In addition, a much larger portion of the royalty revenue has been distributed to all the regional corporations and village corporations of the 

8 

state by virtue of an ANCSA provision that requires 70 percent of 

our resource revenue be shared with the other Native regions. 

ASRC, following the law of Congress, has been required to and 

shared its requisite amount to the other Native corporations, so 

energy has become a part of the economic self-determination of 

every Alaska Native who is a member of a village or regional 

corporation. 

Despite these successes, there are obstacles to accessing Nativeowned resources, and there are obstacles to the Federal resources 

in our region. And outlined in my written testimony are many, 

many examples of these obstacles and delays. 

There is a need for a careful pace of environmental review and 

appropriate mitigation with respect to resource development, but 

we have seen this taken to excess. I urge you to read my comments 

for explicit details of these. 

Regarding ANWR, we know that the issues are different. 

Exploration and development of ANWR will not take place unless 

Congress acts, but there are Native lands inside of ANWR that we 

think we have a shot at developing our own lands, and we deserve 

that shot. It can be done in a safe manner, and will be a great benefit to the people of the North Slope, and the country as a whole. 

Access to energy resources is a part of the economic selfdetermination of our people, and we urge Congress to retain and 

remain a steady partner in access to these resources. Consider the 

people who live there and look north to empower our state and 

local communities to responsibly develop our own natural 

resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT FOR

LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION

Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the 

Subcommittee, my name is Richard Glenn and I serve as Executive Vice President 

for Lands and Natural Resources of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC). 

ABOUT ASRC

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation is 1 of 12 land-owning Alaska Native regional 

corporations established pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 

1971 (ANCSA). ASRC’s region is the North Slope of Alaska and encompasses 55 

million acres (the informal names ‘‘North Slope’’ and ‘‘Arctic Slope’’ are geographically identical and are alternately used when one or the other has become more associated with a given usage or is a part of a formal name). The North Slope region 

includes the villages of Point Hope, Point Lay, Wainwright, Atqasuk, Utqiagvik 

(formerly known as Barrow), Nuiqsut, Kaktovik, and Anaktuvuk Pass. The North 

Slope residents of the villages that I have named are also citizens of the North Slope 

Borough, a home-rule municipality. The residents are largely In ̃upiat (North 

Alaskan ‘‘Eskimos’’); and they comprise many of the shareholder owners of ASRC. 

North Slope village residents depend on subsistence resources from the land, rivers 

and ocean, as they have for millennia. Within this large region ASRC also holds title 

to approximately 5 million acres of surface and subsurface estate conveyed to it by 

ANCSA, much of it with energy, mineral and other resource potential. Among many 

other efforts, ASRC pursues and benefits from natural resource development on and 

near its lands. Energy development of Native-owned and State-owned lands is a 

major component of the success of ASRC and its region. Energy resource development and in some cases energy resource ownership have provided for substantial 

gains in economic self-determination for ASRC’s growing shareholder base of approximately 13,000. 

Under ANCSA, Congress created Native corporations, including ASRC, as profitmaking entities ‘‘to provide benefits to its shareholders who are Natives or descendVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:04 Oct 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERAL\07-18-17\26388.TXT DARLEN
9 

ants of Natives or to its shareholders’ immediate family members who are Natives 

or descendants of Natives to promote the health, education or welfare of such shareholders or family members.’’ Consistent with this unique mandate, ASRC is committed both to providing sound financial returns to our shareholders in the form of 

jobs and dividends, and to preserving our In ̃upiat way of life, culture and traditions, 

including the ability to hunt for food to provide for our communities. 

A portion of our corporate revenues are invested in initiatives that aim to promote 

and support an educated shareholder base, healthy communities and sustainable 

local economies. Our perspective is based on the dual realities that our In ̃upiat 

culture and communities depend upon a healthy ecosystem and the subsistence resources it provides, and upon present and future oil and gas development as the 

foundation of a sustained North Slope economy. 

LAYERS OF LAND OWNERSHIP IN ALASKA: BACKGROUND

Mr. Chairman and Committee members, the present layers of local government, 

resource ownership and representation in our region can be very confusing for outsiders, even for those who are familiar with tribal relations and governance. A brief 

review may be helpful for some and is included in my written testimony. 

The Native-occupied lands of northern Alaska were never ceded away by any treaty nor lost in any battle. The Treaty of Cession, which ratified the United States’ 

1867 purchase of Alaska from Russia, recognized that the Native residents of Alaska 

existed and had rights. Following Alaska’s purchase, however, the Alaska Natives’ 

land rights remained in limbo for generations. While Alaska was still a territory, 

the Federal Government appropriated massive swaths of land with little regard for 

the land ownership rights of the Natives who lived there. In the Arctic Slope region 

there were two such Federal withdrawals of land: In 1923, the formation of the 23- 

million acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 by President Warren G. Harding, and 

in 1960, the formation of the 8 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Range by 

President Eisenhower. 

Statehood in Alaska, in 1959, similarly overlooked aboriginal land and resource 

ownership rights. The state did allow for the formation of city (and eventually 

borough) governments which could tax, zone, and offer community improvements 

within their areas of authority, but offered no method to validate the assertion of 

aboriginal title. Against this land ownership vacuum, the exploration for energy resources around known oil and gas seeps on the North Slope intensified in the 1960s, 

including the gobbling up of North Slope lands by the young state of Alaska for its 

own benefit. Tensions rose and eventually action was taken at the Federal level. In 

1966 Interior Secretary Stewart Udall declared that no oil would be developed and 

no more state lands would be conveyed to Alaska until the issue of aboriginal title 

was resolved. The ‘‘land freeze’’ occurred right before the discovery of the massive 

Prudhoe Bay oil field in 1968–69. The terms of ANCSA were negotiated and debated 

in Congress and eventually ratified by December of 1971. 

The result was the extinguishment of aboriginal land title in Alaska and the formation of land-owning Native regional and village corporations. The land base represented a fraction (in ASRC’s case about 10 percent) of the land that was originally 

claimed by the Native peoples. The Federal Government offered cash settlement as 

additional compensation. With the land base and cash settlement as start-up assets, 

the ANCSA corporations were intended to succeed as profitable corporations delivering benefits to their Alaskan Native shareholders. 

Briefly, the indigenous leadership of the people of the North Slope sanctioned the 

formation of what were to become federally recognized tribes. The same leadership 

at first opposed, and then abided by the terms of ANCSA, which extinguished aboriginal title. Some lands with resource potential were conveyed back to the Arctic 

Slope Native corporations, along with an additional cash settlement. The Federal 

and State governments took the remainder of the lands, a taking which still pains 

many of those who argued for or against the terms of ANCSA before ratification. 

Those of us who came of age during these years are of mixed views on this history. 

For the most part, the leadership that negotiated the terms of ANCSA and ASRC 

leadership have been trying to make the best of the Act for the benefit of our shareholders. 

Using myself as an example, by virtue of Indian Law, ANCSA law, and State law, 

I am a tribal member, and a village and regional corporation shareholder. My tribe 

today possesses many rights similar to those of other Indian tribes, but in general 

owns no land or natural resources. My village and regional corporations own title 

to ANCSA-conveyed lands and natural resources, and have formed for-profit 

operating subsidiaries that offer employment and dividend and other benefits to 

10 

their shareholders. The institutions that represent us are thus split into at least 

three broad swaths, yet braided together like rope and operate on our behalf. 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT AS A TOOL OF SELF-DETERMINATION— 

THE NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH

The presence of the oil and gas industry in our region is the economic base for 

what have become improvements to our cities and towns. Our community is empowered by oil and gas development. The North Slope Borough employs the largest 

number of village residents on the North Slope; maintains its own Department of 

Wildlife Management, which invests heavily in protecting our subsistence resources; 

and maintains stringent permitting requirements for oil and gas companies that operate within our region. Our people therefore depend on a healthy Arctic environment to support subsistence species (caribou, waterfowl, marine mammals, fish and 

others), and also depend on a healthy energy industry to provide the tax base that 

fuels the North Slope Borough government operations. While these dependencies appear to be in conflict, it is the view of many on the North Slope that it is a totally 

appropriate one. 

Many in Congress are under the misguided notion that onshore Arctic development somehow harms the fish, wildlife, and waterfowl resources there. No matter 

how many images we provide of caribou, ducks, fish and even polar bears unharmed 

and undisturbed in close proximity, sometimes even directly on, over, or under oilfield infrastructure. 

By using a strong permitting and zoning process, the Borough today (as it has 

ever since its inception) regulates energy development on its terms to the greatest 

degree possible. The Borough then taxes the real property value of the pipelines, 

drill rigs, and other oil field production and transportation infrastructure. The 

Borough uses the infrastructure-derived tax proceeds to build, operate and maintain 

local education facilities and quality of life improvements (airstrips, roads, reliable 

power, improved housing and healthcare centers) in every one of the villages of our 

region. 

NATIVE OWNERSHIP OF LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES: THE ASRC STORY

The lands conveyed to ASRC, some 5 million acres in total, are located in areas 

that either have known resources or are highly prospective for oil, gas, coal, and 

minerals. Some of the lands are remote and very distant from areas of current exploration and production. The state and Federal lands of the North Slope also contain similar energy resource potential. In fact the overwhelming majority of lands 

developed in Alaska to date have been on state-owned lands. The supergiant 

Prudhoe Bay (initial production in the 1970s) and Kuparuk River (1980s) fields were 

discovered and developed on state-owned lands, for example. Their development was 

a boon to the North Slope Borough tax base and to local Alaska Native corporation 

contractors offering jobs in oilfield construction and operations. Generations of 

ASRC shareholders and North Slope village residents have explored job opportunities in the development of state-owned North Slope fields. But the development of 

the state-owned lands offered no direct royalty benefits to the shareholders of ASRC. 

Exploration and development of oil and gas resources moved westward from the 

Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk fields and eventually toward and into the Colville River 

delta. Finally, in the mid-1990s oil discoveries were made on Colville River delta 

lands that were owned jointly by the state of Alaska, ASRC (subsurface) and the 

Kuukpik Corporation (the surface landowner and the ANCSA village corporation 

representing the people of the Colville River delta village of Nuiqsut). The dominant 

discovery was the Alpine oil field, at its time the largest oilfield discovery in the 

Nation for more than a decade. Facilities were carefully planned and constructed 

over the next several years and in 2000 production finally began from the Alpine 

field. ASRC became a royalty revenue owner. Since production began, the Alpine oil 

field and its related satellite fields have produced a half a billion barrels of quality 

crude oil that has been shipped down the Trans Alaska Pipeline along with oil from 

the Prudhoe/Kuparuk and related fields that continue to produce to this day. Other 

Kuukpik/ASRC lands are slated for additional production. 

The royalty benefits from the Alpine, satellite-fields, and from fields yet to 

produce represent tens of millions of dollars of benefits per year to ASRC and its 

shareholders over the lifetime of production. In addition, a much larger portion of 

the royalty revenue has been distributed to all of the regional and village corporations of the state of Alaska by virtue of a provision in ANCSA that mandated for 

the sharing of natural resource wealth among all ANCSA corporations. The Act 

states in general, that 70 percent of natural resource royalty revenue received by 

a given regional corporation (and this includes oil, gas, minerals and timber 

11 

resources) be shared amongst all the ANCSA regional corporations within Alaska, 

which must also share with the respective village corporations within their regions. 

As a result of its Colville River delta royalty position and the terms of ANCSA, 

ASRC has shared over a billion dollars to date with other ANCSA corporations in 

Alaska. Energy development has thus been a part of the economic selfdetermination of every Alaska Native who is a member of a village or regional 

corporation. 

The trend of the Alpine and related oil and gas discoveries runs right through the 

Colville River delta and heads west into the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

(NPR-A), spanning state-owned, Alaska Native-owned, and Federal lands. 

FEDERAL RESTRICTIONS ON ACCESS TO NATIVE-OWNED LANDS AND RESOURCES

Despite our successes, Federal laws, regulations, and decision making remain 

obstacles to accessing Native-owned resources. 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A) 

In prior years within the NPR-A, as our industry partners will inform you, there 

were attempts to over-mitigate development. By this I mean rather than making appropriate mitigation steps that were scaled to the development effort, multiple mitigation measures were considered, and in places, applied against development 

projects that were themselves ancillary in nature. 

The efforts of Kuukpik and ASRC, described above, to develop our own resources 

within the Alpine oil field have run into regulatory obstacles and unnecessary 

lengthy delays as we have sought to expand the development of the Alpine satellite 

fields (and potentially develop new finds) into the NPR-A. For example: 

• CD-5, the first commercial oil development on Alaska Native (Kuukpik/ASRC) 

lands within the boundaries of the NPR-A, was a project that gained strong 

support from all stakeholders through several years of collaborative planning. 

However, in February 2010, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied 

ConocoPhillips’ permits to construct a drill pad, a pipeline/vehicle bridge 

across the Nigliq Channel in the Colville River delta and access roads. The 

Corps later reversed course, but first production was delayed by several years. 

• The Greater Mooses Tooth One (GMT-1) development, which further extended 

the Alpine Field development, also suffered from lengthy delays, with BLM 

largely failing to consult with ASRC as a resource co-owner throughout the 

process (BLM owns about 10 percent of the oil within the GMT-1 

Participating Area and ASRC owns the remainder). 

• For a time the GMT-1 development effort was threatened to be saddled with 

the Federal share of developing a whole regional mitigation strategy. This 

would have included areas of exploration sponsored by the U.S. Navy and its 

contractors from the 1940s–1980s. 

ASRC is currently engaged in discussions with the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) about the Greater Mooses Tooth Two (GMT-2) development, which also has suffered lengthy bureaucratic delays. BLM initially 

failed to issue a Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) for the GMT-2 project until almost a year after receiving unit operator ConocoPhillips’ Application for Permit to Drill (APD). 

Throughout the development of the SEIS for GMT-2, BLM has delayed the 

process. This remains the case notwithstanding the fact that the potential impacts of the GMT-2 project already have been considered three times under 

various reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 

including the 2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan EIS, the Alpine Satellite 

Development Plan EIS (for which a Record of Decision was issued in 2004), 

and the GMT-1 EIS. 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 

Within ANWR, the issues are different. ASRC realizes that no development will 

take place on the Coastal Plain of ANWR unless Congress Acts. Yet, our goals regarding ANWR are the same: Continued advocacy for responsible onshore development with appropriate environmental review and safeguards. 

ASRC and Kaktovik In ̃upiat Corporation (KIC), the Native Village Corporation for 

the village of Kaktovik, also own more than 92,000 subsurface and surface acres, 

respectively, within ANWR’s Coastal Plain, an area identified for study under 

Section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA). Section 1003 of ANILCA prohibited the leasing, development or 

12 

production of oil and gas from ANWR’s Coastal Plain, including on Native-owned 

lands, ‘‘until authorized by an Act of Congress.’’ 

According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the mean estimate of technically 

recoverable oil from federally owned land in ANWR is 7.7 billion barrels (billion 

bbl), and there is a chance that more than 11.8 billion bbl could be recovered on 

the Federal lands over the life of production. By way of comparison, when the 

Prudhoe Bay oil field was discovered in 1968, it was estimated to contain about 9.6 

billion barrels of recoverable oil. To date, the Prudhoe Bay field has produced about 

17 billion barrels of oil. The Prudhoe Bay oil field will fuel Alaska’s economy for 

50 years. Measured development within the Coastal Plain of ANWR could fuel our 

economy for another 50 years. 

ANWR is roughly the size of South Carolina or Maine. It is a beautiful place, worthy of appropriate protections, but it is not an empty or unpopulated place. More 

than 200 people live in the village of Kaktovik, the only community within the 

boundaries of ANWR, along the Coastal Plain. All of ANWR’s Coastal Plain is part 

of In ̃upiat traditional homelands and much of the land around Kaktovik remains in 

Native ownership today. 

We adhere to the traditional values of protecting the land, the environment and 

the culture of the In ̃upiat. That is why we have worked with Congressman Don 

Young and our Senators to ensure that a wide range of special environmental protective measures are included in legislation introduced over the years that would 

open the Coastal Plain to oil and gas leasing. Congressman Young’s most recent bill, 

H.R. 49, retains those protections, and we thank him for his continuing commitment to the people of the Arctic Slope and to passing legislation to finally permit 

responsible development within the Coastal Plain of ANWR. 

ECONOMIC SELF-DETERMINATION OF ALASKA’S NORTH SLOPE ALASKA NATIVES

The development of oil and gas resources in our region has fostered a stable local 

tax base that provides local education and community improvements that would 

otherwise be lacking or furnished at great expense by the Federal Government and 

other agencies. 

The development of Native-owned lands has provided a regular stream of royalty 

revenue, which has allowed ASRC to grow its non-royalty subsidiaries. Today, royalty revenue is significant, but surprisingly to some, royalties are not the largest 

contributing sector to ASRC’s bottom line. 

Energy development on Alaska’s North Slope has provided the wellspring for the 

growth of economic self-determination of the Natives of Alaska’s North Slope and 

the whole state of Alaska. We have formed a home-rule government in our own region and diversified and grown ASRC into a multi-billion dollar corporation thanks 

in large part to successful exploration and development of Native-owned lands. This 

is the definition of economic self-determination. 

Of course, when Federal laws and policy are used to close lands surrounding 

Native communities to measured resource development, indigenous people are reduced to conservation refugees within their own homelands. This could be said for 

any community anywhere. On the North Slope, we have watched as Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System (TAPS) throughput has been reduced to a fraction of its peak, as 

new conservation withdrawals and management plans have been used to restrict access both to Federal and to Native-owned resources, and as Federal permitting 

delays continually undermine our resource development projects. 

At ASRC, we take the stewardship of our land and resources seriously, and we 

expect the Federal Government to do the same. As the Committee considers energy 

policy in the Arctic, on behalf of Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, I urge to look 

north, go local and empower our state to responsibly develop our natural resources. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOSAR TO RICHARD GLENN, 

EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC SLOPE

REGIONAL CORPORATION

Question 1. Did the Obama administration solicit comments from and listen to the 

people who live in communities within the North Slope before developing the NPRA IAP and the ANWR CCP? If so, what feedback was provided by the local Alaskan 

Native communities. 

Answer. Thank you for your question Chairman Gosar, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on Onshore Oil and Gas Development in Alaska before the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on July 18, 2017. 

13 

The short answer is ‘‘yes,’’ but . . . ‘‘— our input was solicited on NPR-A and 

ANWR but Obama-era Interior officials consistently acted against our position.’’ 

The Obama administration followed policies and procedures in soliciting ASRC’s 

and the North Slope communities’ input prior to both plans. With respect to the 

NPR-A IAP in particular, ASRC was very influential in getting Interior to create 

the NPR-A working group, comprised in part of landowners and municipalities within the NPR-A. The problem is, once formed, the working group seemed to have little 

effect on the decisions made by senior Interior officials, who appeared to give short 

shrift to the organizations (Borough and city governments as well as the landowning 

ANCSA corporations within NPR-A) and instead followed a management that appeared to be more attentive to the e-NGOs. 

The same can be said for the ANWR CCP. ASRC dutifully contributed its position 

on ANWR to Interior, and the administration did not agree with ASRC, and instead 

strode down a path that seemed to favor wilderness status for the 1002 Area of 

ANWR. 

Overall, the concern ASRC and the local North Slope community organizations 

had with the Obama administration solicitation process during the NPR-A IAP and 

ANWR CCP was the apparent lack of true consideration and weight placed upon 

the comments provided by the local people. The In ̃upiat people have lived and 

subsisted off of the lands in the NPR-A and ANWR for thousands of years, yet our 

comments for the NPR-A IAP and ANWR CCP were not more or less important 

than that of organizations and people that are thousands of miles away and may 

never spend time in the NPR-A or ANWR. As residents and landowners in these 

areas we should have the ability to make decisions on how to manage our lands. 

In order to fulfill our commitment to Alaska Native shareholders, we need the 

ability to manage appropriate and responsible development of resources that are on 

lands owned by ASRC and the various Alaska Native organizations on the North 

Slope. We believe that the regulatory and permitting roadblocks that have existed 

in the past should be reconsidered and the comments and feedback of the people 

most impacted by development should be given appropriate consideration. 

Attached you will find comments submitted for the NPR-A IAP and the ANWR 

CCP for your consideration. I appreciate the opportunity to provide you and the 

Committee additional information. If you have any further questions, please don’t 

hesitate to contact me. 

Background 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC) represents approximately 13,000 

Alaska Native In ̃upiat shareholders with a majority living across eight communities 

on the North Slope of Alaska. Four of these communities Atqasuk, Utqiagvik, 

Nuiqsut, and Wainwright reside in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA) and one community Kaktovik lies within Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

(ANWR). 

We at ASRC strongly supported the Secretarial Order No. 3352 made by U.S. 

Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke calling for updated assessments of recoverable 

oil and gas reserves on Federal lands across the North Slope—including the NPRA and the 1002 Area of ANWR. 

ASRC owns the subsurface rights to 4.7 million acres across the North Slope, and 

the surface rights to 4.1 million acres. Of that total, approximately 320,000 acres 

is subsurface rights to land that lies within the NPR-A. Among the four villages 

that own land inside the NPR-A, Atqasuk Corporation, the village corporation of 

Atqasuk, owns 72,954 acres; Olgoonik Corporation, the village corporation of 

Wainwright, owns 170,870 acres; Ukpeagvik In ̃upiat Corporation, the village 

corporation of Barrow, owns 214,810 acres; and Kuukpik Corporation, the village 

corporation of Nuiqsut, owns 77,013 acres (note that Kuukpik lands straddle the 

boundary of the NPR-A). 

ASRC and Kaktovik In ̃upiat Corporation (‘‘KIC’’), the Native Corporation for the 

Village of Kaktovik, own more than 92,000 subsurface and surface acres, respectively, in the ANWR Coastal Plain. In 1971, ANCSA gave KIC surface rights to 

92,160 acres of Federal lands adjacent to the Village, originally allowing KIC to select 69,120 of these acres within the Range and the remainder outside the Range. 

In 1980, ANILCA subsequently allowed KIC to relinquish its selected lands outside 

the Refuge and instead to select the remainder of its Corporation lands within the 

Refuge. ASRC holds the subsurface rights to these lands. These lands hold significant potential for onshore oil and gas development. However, as a result of Section 

1003 of ANILCA, developments of these important economic resources remain off 

limits until further act of Congress. 

14 

***** 

ATTACHMENT 1 

ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION, 

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

June 15, 2012 

NPR-A IAP/EIS Comments 

AECOM Project Office 

1835 South Bragaw Street, Suite 490 

Anchorage, AK 99508 

Re: Draft Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for the 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

Dear IAP/EIS Docket: 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (‘‘ASRC’’) hereby submits the following comments in response to the Draft Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement (Draft IAP/EIS) for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, noticed by 

the Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) in the Federal Register on March 30, 

2012. Notice of Availability—Draft Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 

Statement for the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska, 77 Fed. Reg. 19318 (Mar. 30, 

2012). 

The BLM’s draft IAP/EIS is of critical importance to ASRC and its Alaska Native 

shareholders. The four villages that are within the boundaries of the NPR-A are 

within ASRC’s region and represent communities that our shareholders live in; as 

such, ASRC is committed both to increasing the economic and shareholder development opportunities within our region, and to preserving the In ̃upiat culture and traditions that strengthen our shareholders. We also support responsible development 

of oil and gas resources in Alaska, and specifically on the North Slope (including 

in the NPR-A), and believe that Alaska oil and gas must be an integral component 

of the nation’s energy strategy. 

We have actively participated in the previous NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan 

processes for both the Northeast and Northwest areas of the NPR-A. Based on that 

experience, and on our continuing participation in the myriad land planning processes impacting the North Slope and its inhabitants, we believe that the management practices currently in place for the Northeast and Northwest planning areas 

represent the appropriate balance between development of natural resources that is 

necessary for the continued wellbeing of our Alaska Native shareholders and protection of subsistence and cultural resources. We urge the BLM to adopt Alternative 

D, as discussed more fully below, to ensure that all areas of the NPR-A are open 

to exploration and development, subject to the appropriate land management 

practices. 

Background and Introduction 

The National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR-A) was created in 1923 as one 

of several national reserves established to ensure sufficient petroleum for the Navy 

and other military operations in times of war. In 1976, the Naval Petroleum 

Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA) transferred management of the NPR-A 

to the Department of the Interior. 

The NPRPA states that the NPR-A is to be managed ‘‘in a manner consistent with 

the total energy needs of the Nation’’ and, pursuant to Section 6505a of the NPRPA, 

BLM is required to conduct oil and gas leasing and development in the NPR-A. 

The protection of surface values is also required, to the extent consistent with exploration and development of oil and gas. In 1981, Congress directed BLM to undertake ‘‘an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas’’ in the NPR-A. 

BLM has divided the NPR-A into three planning areas: the Northeast (with 

approximately 4,600,000 acres of public land), the Northwest (with approximately 

8,800,000 acres of public land), and the South (with approximately 9,200,000 acres 

of public land). BLM instituted a planning process for the Northeast area that culminated in issuance of a Record of Decision (ROD) in 1998, which was amended by 

issuance of a supplemental ROD in 2008, and a ROD for the Northwest area was 

issued in 2004. Although BLM began a planning process for the South area in 2005, 

it discontinued that process in 2007. 

In addition, the NPRPA contains special provisions that apply to any exploration 

or production activities within areas ‘‘designated by the Secretary of the Interior 

containing any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical 

15 

1P.L. 96–514, 42 USC § 6504(a). 

2 42 Fed. Reg. 28,723 (June 2, 1977). 

or scenic value.’’ 1 Based on this authority, three areas within the NPR-A were designated in 1977 as ‘‘Special Areas’’ in which activities were to ‘‘be conducted in a 

manner which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values to the extent consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration of the 

reserve.’’ 2

The Teshekpuk Lake Special Area was created to protect migratory waterfowl and 

shorebirds. The Colville River Special Area was created to protect the arctic 

peregrine falcon, which at that time was an endangered species. The Utukok River 

Uplands Special Area was created to protect habitat for the Western Arctic Caribou 

Herd. 

The Teshekpuk Lake and Colville River Special Areas in the Northeast NPR-A 

were enlarged in the ROD that was issued in 1998 and supplemented in 2008, and 

the 2004 ROD for the Northwest NPR-A created the Kasegaluk Lagoon Special 

Area. 

In July, 2010, the BLM initiated a new planning process for the entire NPR-A, 

including the South area, and indicated its intent to develop and publish a Draft 

IAP/EIS for NPR-A. The stated intent was to revisit the appropriate management 

of all BLM-managed lands in the NPR-A in light of new information (since publication of the 1998/2008 and 2004 RODs for the North and Northwest NPR-A) about 

surface and subsurface resources and in a manner consistent with the NPRPA. This 

process included a scoping process that culminated in the issuance of the draft IAP/ 

EIS. 

Any and all BLM decisions that impact the NPR-A, including the BLM’s draft 

IAP/EIS, are of critical importance to ASRC and its Alaska Native shareholders. 

ASRC is the Alaska Native Corporation formed under the Alaska Native Claims 

Settlement Act (‘‘ANCSA’’) that encompasses the entire North Slope of Alaska. 

ASRC has a growing shareholder population of approximately 11,000, and represents eight villages on the North Slope: four that are within the boundaries of the 

NPR-A (Atqasuk, Barrow, Nuiqsut and Wainwright), and four that are not 

(Anaktuvuk Pass, Kaktovik, Point Hope and Point Lay). 

ASRC owns approximately five million acres of land on Alaska’s North Slope, conveyed to the corporation under ANCSA as a settlement of aboriginal land claims. 

Under the express terms of both ANCSA and ANILCA, the unique character of 

these lands, founded in federal Indian law and the most significant Native claims 

settlement in U.S. history, must be recognized by the Congress and the Federal 

government in making any land management decisions. In the unique framework 

created by ANCSA and ANILCA, Congress expected that regional corporations, 

including ASRC, would be responsible for developing the economic infrastructure, 

including management of the abundant natural resources on and under the lands 

conveyed to them, to provide for the economic well-being of Alaska Natives. 

ASRC is committed both to increasing the economic and shareholder development 

opportunities within our region, and to preserving the In ̃upiat culture and traditions 

that strengthen both our shareholders and ASRC. A founding principle of ASRC is 

respect for the In ̃upiat heritage. A portion of our revenues is invested into supporting initiatives that aim to promote healthy communities and sustainable economies. By adhering to the traditional values of protecting the land, the environment 

and the culture of the In ̃upiat, ASRC has successfully adapted and prospered in an 

ever-changing economic climate. 

ASRC lands are located in areas that either have known resources or are highly 

prospective for oil, gas, coal, and base metal sulfides. ASRC remains committed to 

fulfilling its obligations to Alaska Natives, including its shareholders, by developing 

these resources and bringing them to market in a manner that respects In ̃upiat subsistence values while ensuring proper care of the environment, habitat, and wildlife. 

ASRC owns the subsurface rights to 4.7 million acres across the North Slope, and 

the surface rights to 4.1 million acres. Of that total, approximately 320,000 acres 

is subsurface rights to land that lies within the NPR-A. Among the four villages 

that own land inside the NPR-A, Atqasuk Corporation, the village corporation of 

Atqasuk, owns 72,954 acres; Olgoonik Corporation, the village corporation of 

Wainwright, owns 170,870 acres; Ukpeagvik In ̃upiat Corporation, the village 

corporation of Barrow, owns 214,810 acres; and Kuukpik Corporation, the village 

corporation of Nuiqsut, owns 77,013 acres (note that Kuukpik lands straddle the 

boundary of the NPR-A). 

In order to fulfill our commitment to our Alaska Native shareholders, we not only 

need the ability to manage appropriate development of resources that are on lands 

owned by ASRC and the various Alaska Native organizations on the North Slope 

16 

discussed above; we also need to ensure that appropriate development can occur on 

publicly owned land that is managed by the BLM, including the 22.6 million acres 

within the NPR-A that is managed by the BLM. This land, similar to other publiclyowned and federally managed land in other areas of Alaska, is increasingly subject 

to policies and decisions driven by the federal government that may impact the ability of ASRC to fulfill its mission, and it is critical that Alaska Native corporations 

have an opportunity to meaningfully participate in the development and implementation of polices that impact our ability to fulfill our mission to our shareholders. 

This is especially true with respect to lands within the three planning areas in the 

NPR-A. 

In addition to creating important jobs for economically disadvantaged Alaska 

Natives, responsible oil and gas development on the North Slope and offshore would 

play an integral role in providing a long term, secure supply of energy to the nation. 

It would also help ensure sufficient future flow of product through the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System, which is now operating at only one-third of its original capacity. 

Advances in technology lead us to believe that the abundant energy resources available, both onshore and offshore, in Alaska can be developed safely and responsibly, 

and in a manner that protects cultural and subsistence resources. 

ASRC is owned by 11,000 In ̃upiat Eskimo shareholders, and approximately 40% 

of our shareholders reside in the villages of Barrow, Wainwright, Atqasuk and 

Nuiqsut; all of those communities are within the boundaries of NPR-A. Many of our 

shareholders that reside within those boundaries use the NPR-A for regular subsistence activities. 

In the DEIS, BLM appears to diminish the presence of human habitation within 

the boundaries of NPR-A by our shareholders and residents of the North Slope. The 

information contained in the DEIS with respect to our entitlements and holdings 

are undervalued by BLM or simply inaccurate. For example, in Volume 1, Section 

3.4, Table 3-21, page 336, BLM references that Native corporation surface estate is 

equal to 215,450 acres. However, in Volume 1, Section 3.4, Table 3-22, page 337, 

BLM correctly describes the Village corporation entitlements of 705,864 acres. Since 

the Native Corporation surface estates and the Village Corporation entitlements are 

essentially one and the same we find Volume 1, Section 3.4, Table 3-21, page 336 

to be misleading. This distorts the true ownership structure and gives the public 

the impression that very little village corporation surface estate is affected by the 

BLM’s management plan. 

Maps 2-1, 2-2, 2-3 and 2-4 in Volume 5 reflect most of the Native Corporation 

lands within NPR-A have either a Patent or are in Interim Conveyance status, and 

are, therefore, aligned with the information contained in Volume 1, Section 3.4, 

Table 3-22, Page 337. The information supplied by BLM in the aforementioned maps 

within Volume 5 clearly illustrate that the numbers contained in Volume 1, Section 

3.4, Table 3-21, page 336 are misleading and therefore incorrect. 

BLM also notes that there are 326 Native Allotments within the NPR-A that 

equal to 30,100 acres and reflects that number as ‘‘. . . approximately 0.13 percent.’’ 

Our shareholders and Native allotment owners utilize more than 0.13 percent of the 

NPR-A lands for subsistence and recreation, as suggested by BLM. 

While BLM acknowledges that in the DEIS they do not seem to acknowledge to 

the largest extent possible that our people were the first inhabitants of the area now 

called the NPR-A and for us to continue our existence on the North Slope we need 

not only our subsistence resources protected but also our economic resources need 

to be protected and enhanced. Do not reduce the In ̃upiat history and presence within the NPR-A through this document. 

BLM has failed to adequately illustrate the true existence of our people and our 

relationship to the lands within the boundaries of the NPR-A. In ̃upiat were the first 

inhabitants of the North Slope, including the federally recognized boundaries of the 

NPR-A. Attempts to minimize the relationship our people have with this area are 

disappointing and misleading. It is essential that we continue to protect and balance 

the subsistence resources and needs of our people while preserving our opportunities 

for economic development. This document attempts to strike at the core of our identity as a people and reduce our In ̃upiat history and presence within the NPR-A to 

simple pages in this document. 

With this background, we offer the following specific comments with respect to the 

Draft IAP/EIS. 

I. Integrity of the Process. As we indicated in our two letters requesting that the 

Bureau extend the time for commenting on Draft IAP/EIS, this NPR-A planning 

process will directly affect the lives, customs, and lifestyles of our Alaska Native 

shareholders, and other stakeholders on the North Slope, more than anyone else. 

It is critical that the planning process be transparent and offer the opportunity for 

17 

our organizations to provide the type of meaningful input that is called for by statute, regulation and good public policy with respect to such an important process. 

While we understand and support BLM’s desire to complete the IAP/EIS in a 

timely fashion, especially as it is a critical component of the broader energy development strategy for Alaska and the nation, we are concerned that the Bureau’s efforts 

to push this process through has compromised the ability of organizations that 

represent the interests of the Alaska Natives that will be most directly impacted 

to provide the meaningful input that is so critical to the process. This is especially 

important in the context of Section 810 of ANILCA and the specific direction given 

by Congress with respect to decisions involving public lands and the impact of those 

decisions on Alaska Natives’ subsistence purposes and needs. 

In order to provide meaningful input and commentary on the IAP/EIS, we need 

to understand how BLM arrived at the planning strategies and positions that are 

set forth in the IAP/EIS. One of the most productive means of acquiring that understanding is through the public meetings at which BLM presents this information 

and is available for questions and answers. In this case, we acknowledge that BLM 

staff held eight public hearings in North Slope villages, and that it will hold another 

in Point Lay on June 5, 2012, to provide an opportunity to comment to Point Lay 

residents who were engaged in subsistence whaling activities during the previously 

scheduled meeting. 

We note, however, that BLM convened the first of these public meetings on May 

14, 2012, some forty-five days into the public comment period. By scheduling these 

meetings at the end of the public comment period instead of at the beginning, 

affected villages and Alaska Natives have not been able to be as informed on the 

document and the process as they need to be to have meaningful participation in 

the process, especially with respect to the potential impacts of each of the alternatives (including cumulative impacts under each of the alternatives) on subsistence 

activities. 

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that the Draft IAP/EIS and supporting 

materials are voluminous, dense, and very difficult to use and work through, especially in the absence of discussions with the BLM staff—through meetings held earlier in the process—that could have provided more of a foundation for understanding 

the process and substantive decisions under consideration. 

Two specific examples are worth mentioning. First, in developing the RODs that 

were developed for the Northeast and Northwest planning areas, BLM worked closely with stakeholders to develop a strategic framework and approach that relied on 

‘‘Required Operating procedures’’ (ROPs) as tools for managing development in a 

manner that was protective of the lands and resources in areas that were subject 

to development. These ROPs, which set forth terms, conditions and mitigating restrictions on development activities, were developed through a process that was designed to ensure that the ROPs were specific to the operator and to the development 

being undertaken. 

In this Draft IAP/EIS, the Bureau uses the terms ROPs and ‘‘best management 

practices’’ (BMPs) throughout the document; in some cases they appear to be used 

interchangeably, whereas in other areas it appears that they mean something very 

different. Specifically, in many places BMPs appear to apply across the entire NPRA and to all operators in all areas, as opposed to the operator-specific nature of the 

ROPs. It is not clear at all from the documents, however, whether the Bureau 

intends that the terms be used interchangeably (and that they refer to the same 

procedures/instruments), or if in fact the Bureau is actually changing the existing 

ROP-based framework. 

We have been unable to determine how the BMP framework envisioned in the 

Draft IAP/EIS changes or does not change the current framework, including specific 

ROPs currently in place. If it is intended to change current ROPs, we submit that 

(a) BLM has not made clear enough how the ROPs are being changed, which is critical for developers and other stakeholders to understand; and (b) BLM has not identified new information or changed circumstances that support the need for a change 

away from the current ROP-based system, which we believe is working very well. 

Second, we are concerned that the process as envisioned by BLM will not give 

adequate time or opportunity for stakeholders to evaluate and comment on the 

Bureau’s selection of the Preferred Alternative. As an initial matter, the Draft IAP/ 

EIS does not identify a ‘‘preferred alternative’’ nor does it include any discussion 

regarding the Bureau’s thinking or preliminary position on any of the four alternatives, so it is very difficult to know where our comments should be focused. 

In addition, we understand that the Bureau anticipates issuing a final IAP/EIS 

that will include the selected Preferred Alternative, but that it also expects to adopt 

the Preferred Alternative without a reasonable opportunity for stakeholders to review the decision documents and comment on the selected Preferred Alternative. We 

18 

3Draft IAP/EIS, at 221. 

believe that it is critical to that the Bureau not only solicit comments on each of 

the alternatives that are under consideration (as it has done with publication of the 

Draft IAP/EIS), but also that stakeholders be given an opportunity to evaluate and 

comment on the selection of the Preferred Alternative and the rationale pursuant 

to which the Preferred Alternative was selected. 

We note that in past planning exercises, stakeholders were given the opportunity 

to submit comments on the Final IAP/EIS, including selection of the Preferred 

Alternative. In fact, for the first amendment to the Northeast Planning Area IAP/ 

EIS, we understand that comments/challenges to the Preferred Alternative that 

were filed with the BLM after issuance of the final IAP/EIS document but before 

issuance of the ROD resulted in changes to the IAP/EIS that were made prior to 

issuance of the ROD, which then included a revised Preferred Alternative. We understand that the Bureau is committed only to meeting the minimum procedural requirements under NEPA (not making a decision on the plan to adopt the Preferred 

Alternative until at least 30 days after issuance of the Final IAP/EIS). If this is the 

Bureau’s plan, we request that it revise the plan and commit to more open and 

transparent process that allows for a formal notice and comment period during 

which stakeholders can comment on BLM’s selected Preferred Alternative and the 

rationale for that selection. 

We are also particularly concerned that in the discussion of ‘‘cumulative effects’’ 

in Chapter 4 of the Draft IAP/EIS the Bureau has selectively characterized 

‘‘comments and concerns . . . voiced by North Slope In ̃upiat’’ in a manner that is, 

at best, incomplete and dated and at worst, misleading. For example, we have reviewed table 4-41, which is titled ‘‘Summary of select North Slope concerns/ 

information presented at public meetings’’ (emphasis added).3 As an initial matter, 

we question whether publishing ‘‘selected’’ comments is appropriate in the context 

of attempting to characterize the views of ‘‘the North Slope In ̃upiat.’’ Leaving aside 

the issue of whether it is even appropriate to try to ascribe one set of views to a 

group of people who have as wide a variety of viewpoints on these issues as ‘‘North 

Slope In ̃upiat’’ have, it appears to us that these comments were ‘‘selected’’ because 

they all steer the process toward what appears to be a desired outcome— 

characterizing the North Slope In ̃upiat as being opposed to oil and gas development. 

Without detracting from our concerns about the propriety of trying to make this 

broad characterization, we also question whether these comments are in any way 

representative of current attitudes of North Slope In ̃upiat regarding oil and gas development. The ‘‘selected’’ comments date as far back as 1976, and the most recent 

is from 2003. Of the 36 comments that were included in Table 4-41, seven (7) were 

from the 1970’s, eight (8) from the 1980’s, and seven (7) from the 1990’s; in sum, 

over 60% of the selected comments were from the pre-2000 era. We know from experience that there have been many more recent public meetings/discussions on oil 

and gas development on the Alaska and the North Slope in general, and in the 

NPR-A specifically, and associated impacts on subsistence, and that many North 

Slope In ̃upiat have presented their views/comments/concerns in those fora. If BLM 

insists on presenting this type of information, we suggest that the Bureau should 

provide summaries of comments/concerns made at more current meetings in order 

to better characterize up-to-date attitudes and opinions of the North Slope In ̃upiat 

toward oil and gas development. 

We also take issue with the manner in which the Bureau characterizes these 

comments. The second column in the Table lists what the Bureau calls ‘‘effects’’ of 

activities on resource categories as identified by the commenter. As best we can determine, however, there is no evidence or scientific evaluation or determination that 

the noted conditions were in fact the effect of—caused by—the cited oil and gas activities. We suggest that a more accurate way to characterize these conditions is to 

call them ‘‘observation of conditions and locations’’ in the table, so that reviewers 

of the document are not misled into thinking that the observations have actually 

been documented as having been caused by, or traced back to, the cited oil and gas 

activities. 

Finally, we have also found it difficult to assess how the management strategies 

established in each of the four alternatives would impact activities and management 

of private land within the NPR-A. In fact, we could not find a list or any other 

means of identifying the private landowners within the NPR-A, which seems to us 

to be an essential element in fulfilling the Bureau’s consultation obligations under 

Section 810 of ANILCA as well as the National Environmental Policy Act. 

19 

4Draft IAP/EIS, Executive Summary at 2-4. 

II. Do Not Need a New IAP/EIS for All NPR-A Planning Areas, but Support One 

IAP Covering All Planning Areas, Including the South Area. ASRC has participated 

in each of the planning processes that have been undertaken with respect to the 

planning areas in the NPR-A, including the designation of special areas within the 

NPR-A. That includes three different planning processes and associated NEPA environmental impact statement processes for the Northeast and Northwest that ultimately resulted in the currently-effective RODs for these two areas, as well as the 

planning process for the South area that was abandoned prior to issuance of a ROD 

for that area. 

Based on our experience in these various processes, and accounting for the exploration and development activities that have occurred in the NPR-A since 2000 

(undertaken by ConocoPhillips Alaska Inc., British Petroleum, Anadarko Petroleum 

Corp., Total E&P, Inc., and FEX, L.P., among others), we believe that the land management strategies and practices that were developed and that have been implemented (including Lease Stipulations, ROPs, etc.) are sufficiently robust to achieve 

the balance between the Congressional mandate that oil and gas exploration and 

development occur in the NPR-A and the need to protect the resources, including 

resources that are critical for our subsistence lifestyle. 

These strategies and practices were heavily negotiated during these processes, 

and we do not believe that any of the ‘‘changed circumstances’’ cited by the Bureau 

in the Draft IAP/EIS 4 require that these strategies and practices be revisited, or 

that there is the need for additional stipulations, ROPs, or new BMPs above and 

beyond those currently in place. Several of the factors cited in the Draft IAP/EIS 

as ‘‘changed circumstances’’ that trigger the need for a new planning strategy and 

process are, in fact, statistics that are constantly changing—oil and gas prices, and 

estimates of technically recoverable oil and gas reserves, for example. Because these 

and other factors are constantly changing, it does not make sense to base a decision 

to change a fundamental planning process on the fact that they have changed. To 

do so would result in a planning process that was constantly being revised, and, 

under such a scenario, no development would ever take place because developers 

would never know what the applicable ground rules for development were going to 

be. 

We also believe that it is both appropriate and necessary that the NPR-A south 

planning area be included in the preferred alternative. For all of the reasons stated 

above, it is essential that the master plan for land management in the NPR-A cover 

all publicly managed land in the NPR-A, and that the Bureau not simply fall back 

on the historical precedent where the Northeast and Northwest areas are included 

but the south area is not. We suggest, however, that while it is critical that the 

south area be included, it may be appropriate to defer leasing in the south area for 

some period of time, up to twenty years. We understand that there is little current 

interest in exploration/development of that area, and believe that it may therefore 

be appropriate to defer leasing in that area. 

Of the four alternatives discussed in the Draft IAP/EIS, we support the scope set 

forth in Alternative D, pursuant to which all NPR-A lands would be made available 

for oil and gas leasing, although leasing in the lands currently deferred from leasing 

(approximately 1.57 million acres in northwestern NPR-A and approximately 

430,000 acres north and east of Teshekpuk Lake) would not be offered for lease 

until the deferrals have expired. While we do not necessarily agree with the Bureau 

that there are conservation needs in these areas that need to be protected from oil 

and gas development for the duration of the current deferral periods, we would not 

object to the retention of the current deferral periods, with no extensions, provided 

that all other NPR-A lands were made available under this alternative. 

We believe that the performance-based stipulations, ROPs, and study and monitoring requirements that are currently in place for the Northeast and Northwest 

planning areas, including the protections built into the program for lands with particularly high surface resource values, are sufficient and should continue to be applied in those areas, and that they should be easily adopted for the South planning 

area as well. As noted earlier in these comments, it is very difficult to determine 

whether the ROPs that are currently in effect for the Northeast and Northwest 

Planning Areas are the same as, similar to, or different from the universe of ROPs 

and BMPs set forth in the draft IAP/EIS. We therefore suggest that unless the 

Bureau grants more time for analysis and comment (which would allow us to work 

with BLM staff to thoroughly understand the similarities/differences and therefore 

provide substantive comments), we suggest that the Bureau simply adopt those 

practices verbatim from the IAP/EIS for those two areas and apply them across the 

entire NPR-A as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

20 

5Draft IAP/EIS, at 22. 6 Id., at 30. 7 Id. 

8 Id., at 31. 9 Id. 

10 Id. 

We also concur that it is not necessary or appropriate to apply several stipulations 

common to the other three alternatives to protect biological resources near 

Teshekpuk Lake, as discussed in Section 2.3.4 of the Draft IAP/EIS.5

In summary, we would recommend that the preferred alternative adopt the scope 

as set forth in Alternative D, and that its apply the currently effective management 

practices that are in place for the Northeast and Northwest areas across the entire 

NPR-A, and not include additional or modified practices. 

III. Oppose Designation of New Special Areas, Conservation Areas, or Wild and 

Scenic River Designations. We do not support any expansion of existing Special 

Areas, any designation of new Special Areas or conservation areas, or any recommendations to Congress regarding designations of any Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

We are concerned that any expansion of existing areas or designation of new areas 

(a) is not warranted by current conditions; (b) could have adverse impacts on usage 

levels of those areas; (c) could have unanticipated impacts on development opportunities on private lands adjacent to or near such areas; and/or (d) could serve as the 

first step to greater restrictions in the future, despite the fact that they do not result 

in actual current restrictions. 

We concur with the Bureau’s determination that evaluating areas within the 

NPR-A for suitability for Wilderness designation is beyond the scope of this planning effort.6 We also agree that evaluating lands within the NPR-A for potential 

designation as Wild Lands is also not appropriate or within the scope of the planning process.7

In the Draft IAP/EIS, BLM discusses the issue of determining Wild and Scenic 

River suitability in the Northeast and Northwest planned portions of NPR-A.8 As 

part of that discussion BLM recognizes the efforts undertaken with respect to Wild 

and Scenic River eligibility in the previous planning processes, noting that while it 

found 22 rivers to be ‘‘eligible’’ for designation, it ‘‘was able to provide protection for 

all eligible rivers through methods other than Wild and Scenic River designation.’’ 9

As part of this current planning process, BLM found: 

No changes in factors relevant to Wild and Scenic River designation; 

That BLM remains able to provide protection for these streams through methods 

other than Wild and Scenic River designation; and 

That there is no new information that suggests that the prior conclusions in the 

1998 Northeast and 2003 Northwest IAP/EIS and their respective record of decisions (1998 and 2004) should be reconsidered or modified with respect to Wild and 

Scenic River suitability.10

We are concerned that Alternatives B and C both contain recommendations for 

congressional designation of areas for inclusion in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System in the southern portion of the NPR-A, despite the fact that the 

Bureau has acknowledged that the management system currently in place in the 

Northeast and Northwest planning areas are sufficiently robust to provide adequate 

protection of rivers suitable for designation without having to resort to actual designation. The areas discussed for potential designation in Alternative B are portions 

of the Colville River, Nigu River, Etivluk River, Ipnavik River, Kuna River, Kiligwa 

River, Nuka River, Awuna River, Kokolik River, and Utukok River, and Driftwood 

and Carbon creeks; in Alternative C they include portion of the Colville River, the 

Utukok River (within the NPR-A), and the Kiligwa River. 

We submit that if the BLM adopts/applies the currently effective management 

practices that are in place for the Northeast and Northwest areas across the entire 

NPR-A, including the areas where these rivers are located, it must reach the same 

conclusions as it did with respect to the 22 rivers in the Northeast and Northwest 

planning areas—that designation is not necessary under current management 

practices. 

In addition, we are concerned that designation of any areas for inclusion in the 

National Wild and Scenic Rivers System will actually have the exact opposite effect 

of conservation on designated area(s). The areas discussed for potential designation 

in Alternative and in Alternative C are already ‘wild’ and have been subject to relatively little impact from various uses of the water bodies. Based on our experience 

in Alaska, and our understanding of similar experience elsewhere, designating these 

21 

areas as Wild and Scenic River areas and giving them scenic status will only 

increase their usage, and would actually result in a greater impact. 

Given the geographical location of the areas discussed for potential designation 

in Alternatives B and C, we are also concerned that any such designation could 

have the potential to create numerous north-south barriers to any future infrastructure across the NPR-A, and we do not believe that the Bureau has adequately assessed the potential impacts of such barriers. 

We are also concerned that, with respect to expansion of existing Special Area 

designations, or the designation of new Special Areas or Wild and Scenic Rivers, 

such expansion or new designation could have the effect of foreclosing substantial 

economic opportunities associated with the potential for future development of the 

NPR-A’s enormous projected onshore oil and gas reserves, as well as potential impacts on the ability to develop infrastructure for managing recoverable oil and gas 

in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

Responsible oil and gas development on the North Slope and offshore would provide a safe and secure source of energy to the nation, create important jobs for economically disadvantaged Alaska Native people and others throughout the country, 

and help ensure future flows through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which is 

now operating at only one-third of its original capacity. We remind BLM that the 

NPRPA requires that the NPR-A be managed ‘‘in a manner consistent with the total 

energy needs of the Nation,’’ and submit that even though we as a nation lack a 

comprehensive energy strategy, it is indisputable that discovery and development of 

oil and gas resources in the Arctic, including in the NPR-A, is desperately needed 

to meet the ‘‘total energy needs’’ of the country. 

With advances in technology, it is possible to develop these oil and gas reserves 

and allow access to much-needed energy resources with minimal land disturbance 

and without significant disturbance to wildlife. Technological advances have significantly reduced the ‘‘footprint’’ of oil and gas development. We continue to believe 

that responsible resource development and appropriate management of resources, 

including subsistence resources, are not mutually exclusive goals. 

As a result, we oppose any designations that would erect additional barriers to 

responsible oil and gas exploration in the NPR-A where there is no demonstrated 

need for such barriers. This extends to potential barriers to exploration and development that occur not on BLM-managed land, but on privately-owned land that is potentially impacted by such designations. 

For example, we are concerned with the size of the ‘New Special’ areas that are 

recommended in Alternatives B and C of the Draft IAP/EIS. Two of those areas— 

Peard Bay and Kaselaguk Lagoon Special Areas—almost surround existing private 

land owned by the Olgoonik Corporation (around Wainwright) and the Atqasuk 

Corporation (around Atqasuk). If those areas were designated as discussed in the 

alternatives, any protections that are triggered for Special Areas would have a significant impact on the ability of the two Native Corporations to undertake the type 

of exploration and development of the resources located on their land to provide for 

the wellbeing of the Alaska Natives that live in those communities. 

We are also more generally concerned with the manner in which the Draft IAP/ 

EIS expands upon the concept of ‘‘Special Areas.’’ For example, while the Department of Interior originally established the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area in 1977, 

that designation in and of itself did not contain any restrictions on oil and gas development. Subsequent efforts to restrict oil and gas development (and other activities) 

in the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area were based primarily on a vague perceived 

need to protect migratory waterfowl, and were the result of a negotiated tradeoff 

to allow oil and gas development in others areas of the NPR-A. 

We note that in the Draft IAP/EIS, BLM cites as a major rationale for expanding 

the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area (in Alternatives B and C) the need to protect important caribou calving areas. We are concerned that there are no objective criteria 

or guideposts that are being (or that can be) applied to determine what should be 

considered a ‘‘Special Area’’ subject to restrictions on development and other activities. In the absence of any governing criteria or established process, and in light of 

the impacts of designation discussed elsewhere in these comments, we suggest that 

it is not appropriate to create new Special Areas or expand existing Special Areas 

in the context of this planning process. 

We acknowledge that while new Special Area designations may not automatically 

trigger any additional proscribed management efforts or restrictions on activities 

within designated Special Areas, there is nevertheless an impact that results from 

designation. Such designations do create perceptions—simply drawing an outline 

around the area on a map gives the impression that the area has been selected as 

a conservation unit, and that it is or will be subject to current or future developVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:04 Oct 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERAL\07-18-17\26388.TXT DARLEN
22 

ment restrictions, regardless of the fact that designation does not automatically 

trigger any such restriction. 

It is also our experience that any such designation is inevitably only the first step 

toward future restrictions and conditions that could impact both subsistence activities as well as exploration and development of natural resources. This is especially 

troublesome in light of the lack of governing principles or established criteria for 

establishing or designating new Special Areas or expanding existing special Areas. 

Any degree of uncertainty regarding future restrictions that would be triggered 

by such designation is in many instances sufficient to drive away parties that may 

have been interested in partnering with corporations and regional corporations like 

ASRC to responsibly explore and develop resources, particularly oil and gas resources, that would benefit both the Nation and the local Alaska Native populations 

that rely so heavily on such development. For this reason, we oppose any further 

extension of existing Special Areas or the designation of any new Special Areas in 

the NPR-A. 

Conclusion 

ASRC appreciates this opportunity to provide meaningful input to BLM as it continues to develop land management plans for the NPR-A. We urge the Bureau to 

be mindful of the fact that the NPR-A is, and has long been, the home of Alaska 

Native people who continue to maintain a strong connection to the land that is fundamental to our very way of life. In addition to the substantial value that our people 

(and the broader Alaska Native community) will draw from responsible development 

of the NPR-A’s bountiful oil and gas resources, the land and its resources are essential to our subsistence way of life. As it develops the final IAP/EIS and Record of 

Decision, we urge BLM to fulfill its commitment to an ongoing, meaningful partnership with ASRC and the broader Alaska Native community, and not to take any 

action that could deprive our people of access to and use of these resources or otherwise adversely impact the culture and heritage that lies at the very foundation of 

who we are. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD GLENN

Executive Vice-President

Lands and Natural Resources 

***** 

ATTACHMENT 2 

ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION, 

ANCHORAGE, ALASKA

October 24, 2012 

Secretary Salazar 

Department of Interior 

Re: Preferred Alternative B-2 for the Draft Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental 

Impact statement for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

Dear Secretary Salazar: 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (‘‘ASRC’’) is submitting this letter in response 

to the Department of Interior’s public announcement on August 13, 2012 on the 

proposed Preferred Alternative B-2 for the NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan/ 

Environmental Impact Statement. ASRC is both surprised and frustrated by the 

broad-brush changes that are reflected in the Preferred Alternative B-2 and the resulting impacts on activities in NPR-A. 

We have recently met with several representatives from the Department of 

Interior (the ‘‘Department’’) to present our comments and concerns about Preferred 

Alternative B-2, and we asked that the Department reconsider its current position. 

It is apparent to us, however, that the Bureau of Land Management (‘‘BLM’’) has 

chosen to side with the interests of environmental groups outside our region rather 

than listening to and taking into account the viewpoint of the people of the North 

Slope who are most directly impacted by any decision regarding the NPR-A. This 

is not only wrong from a public policy perspective; it is also in direct contradiction 

23 

to the pledge of the Obama administration to more fully engage with Native groups 

on issues that directly impact our way of life. 

We are very frustrated with the lack of meaningful consultation during the IAP/ 

EIS process with tribal and other Native groups. This lack of consultation is appalling, especially in light of the Obama administration’s stated policy requiring that 

agencies have more meaningful and substantive Native engagement and consultation. Unfortunately, it appears that the Department has decided to continue its old 

practice of ‘‘picking and choosing’’ what types of consultation it wants to participate 

in and with whom it wants to consult. As a result, it appears that consultation only 

involves those entities whose constituents already support the Department’s position 

on an issue. 

We find it ironic that while the Department prides itself on its outreach to Native 

groups, and has stated publicly that enhancing consultation is supposedly an administration priority, our experience is that the past administration did a much better 

job of this. Through extensive consultation and collaboration with all of the stakeholders in NPR-A, prior administrations presented a ‘‘balanced plan’’ that the parties agreed to. The BLM should revisit its decision and again undertake a balanced 

effort to select a preferred alternative that takes into account input from all interested parties. 

ASRC has participated in all four of the NPRA IAP/EIS processes since 1999, and 

as we stated during each of these efforts, the results of the IAP/EIS are of critical 

importance to ASRC and its Alaska Native shareholders. The four villages within 

the boundaries of the NPR-A—Wainwright, Barrow, Atqasuk and Nuiqsut—are all 

in ASRC’s region. Our shareholders live in these villages, and ASRC is committed 

to fulfilling its congressionally-mandated mission to increase economic and shareholder development opportunities and preserve In ̃upiat culture and traditions. 

Accordingly, we support safe and responsible development of oil and gas resources 

in Alaska and specifically on the North Slope (including in the NPR-A). We also believe that Alaska oil and gas must be an integral component of the nation’s energy 

strategy. 

Based on our experience and participation in the previous NPR-A IAP processes 

for both the northeast and northwest areas of the NPR-A, and on our continuing 

participation in the myriad land planning processes that impact the North Slope 

and its inhabitants, we believe that the management practices that are currently 

in place for the northeast and northwest planning areas represent the appropriate 

balance between development of natural resources that is necessary for the continued well-being of our Alaska Native shareholders and protection of subsistence and 

cultural resources. 

We specifically take issue with the new areas identified as ‘‘Unavailable to 

Leasing’’ and ‘‘Unavailable to Lease and no new non-subsistence infrastructure’’ in 

the Preferred B2 Alternative. Under the IAP/EIS process, the BLM has stated numerous times that any changes to the NPR-A IAP/EIS would be based on sound 

science. We do not believe that there is any sound science, presented in the March 

NPR-A IAP/EIS or otherwise in the administrative record, that supports designating 

several areas as off-limits to leasing in the Preferred B-2 Alternative. For instance, 

four townships of land south of Teshekpuk Lake have been added to the ‘‘Unavailable to Leasing’’ category in the Preferred Alternative; we cannot find any ecological 

or biological significance assigned to this area in the draft document. The inclusion 

of such a large area also seems arbitrary; there was already a six-mile buffer around 

Teshekpuk Lake that was designated as being unavailable to leasing. We also do 

not believe that the large areas west of Teshekpuk Lake to Dease Inlet should be 

categorized as ‘‘Unavailable to Leasing.’’ While this region in general may have a 

higher habitat value for a variety of species when the various species’ habitats are 

mapped on top of this area, we believe that the BLM could more responsibly use 

a focused approach in this region that would be similar to the approach it utilized 

in prior NW NPR-A IAP/EIS and the prior NE NPR-A IAP/EIS. 

We also note that the practice of ‘‘mapping’’ species and habitats, including subsistence resources, is a temporal exercise. Species and habitats shift over time, 

sometimes dramatically, and our experience on the North Slope is that the movement of these resources can render the results of a mapping exercise moot over a 

relatively short period of time. It is critical, therefore, to ensure that the designation 

of any area that is based on mapping of current resources is thoroughly vetted and 

that there are sound scientific bases for designating those areas. 

We suggest that while it is critical that the south area be included as part of this 

planning process, it may be appropriate to defer the area from leasing for twenty 

years if the science suggests that deferral would be appropriate. While we understand that there is little current interest in exploration/development of that area, 

that may not always be the case, as advancements in technology have demonstrated 

24 

time and again that what may not be possible today may be very possible in the 

future. Therefore, we suggest that it would be appropriate to defer leasing in this 

area, if warranted by sound science, for a term of twenty years. 

We believe that responsible oil and gas development on the North Slope and 

offshore allows ASRC to meet its congressionally-mandated obligations to its shareholders. We continue to believe that responsible resource development and appropriate management of resources, including subsistence resources, are not mutually 

exclusive goals. Responsible development also provides a safe and secure source of 

energy to the nation, creates important jobs, and helps ensure future flows through 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. We remind BLM that the NPR-A is to be managed ‘‘in a manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation,’’ and we 

respectfully submit that discovery and development of oil and gas resources in the 

Arctic, including in the NPR-A, is desperately needed to meet the ‘‘total energy 

needs’’ of the country. 

In conclusion, we oppose any designations that would erect additional barriers to 

responsible oil and gas exploration in the NPR-A where there is no demonstrated 

need or scientific basis for such barriers. Our opposition extends to potential barriers to exploration and development that occur not on BLM-managed land, but on 

privately-owned land that is potentially impacted by such designations. As such, we 

believe that the B-2 Preferred Alternative is deeply flawed, as was the process 

through which the choice of the preferred remedy was made. 

We urge the Department to withdraw the selection of the B-2 Preferred 

Alternative and more fully and faithfully engage in meaningful consultation with 

the Alaska Native people who are most directly impacted by the IAP/EIS. This will 

lead to the selection of a preferred alternative that better reflects a balance between 

development of resources and the protection of areas with significant subsistence, 

recreational and fish and wildlife, based on sound scientific analyses. 

Sincerely, 

RICHARD GLENN

Executive Vice-President

Lands and Natural Resources 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Dixon for his testimony. Thank 

you. 

STATEMENT OF GARY DIXON, VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL 959 

ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Mr. DIXON. Thank you, Chairman Gosar and members of the 

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to give testimony in regards to promoting onshore oil and gas development in Alaska. My 

name is Gary Dixon, Jr., and I am the Vice President of Teamsters 

Local 959 in the state of Alaska. Not only am I a third-generation 

Alaskan, I am a third-generation Teamster Local 959 member. 

Teamsters Local 959 represents 5,000-plus workers all across the 

state of Alaska in a vast amount of industries. For example, AT&T, 

Usibelli Coal Mine, Kodiak Coast Guard Base, Lynden Transport, 

the two shipping companies, Matson and TOTE, at the Port of 

Anchorage, construction workers all over the state of Alaska and 

on the North Slope on pipeline and civil work, and maintenance 

workers on the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. 

I started my career on the North Slope, working for a pipeline 

company, Houston Contracting. It is an ASRC-owned company. I 

was the age of 18. I worked there for 20 years. I also worked on 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline for many years. Over the years, we have 

seen the economic good times of building the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

in the 1970s to the bad times in the late 1980s, when oil hit $10 

25 

a barrel, real estate prices pummeled, people were filing for bankruptcy, banks were closing, and people were leaving Alaska. 

Alaska’s economy has a large dependency on the oil industry. 

Other industries combined do not make up the amount of jobs, 

wages, and overall economic impact the oil industry has for the 

people of the state of Alaska. It is not just about the jobs the industry provides on the North Slope. It is also about the indirect jobs 

it creates to the Alaska economy and to other states in the Lower 

48. 

New development is important to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

system. At its peak in 1988, it had 2 million barrels of oil going 

through it a day. Today, it has in the neighborhood of 550,000 

barrels a day as throughput average, which creates a problem for 

Alyeska Pipeline Company that operates the pipeline for the North 

Slope producers. Over the years, steady decline in the oil production on the North Slope is running much lower volume than originally designed, and oil temperatures and wax buildup are a big 

issue. 

The pipeline, half empty, it is harder to get the oil moving down 

the pipeline. It has created such a problem for Alyeska Pipeline 

that they have engineered a looping system that will direct oil from 

the mainline through this looping system to recirculate a few 

times, just to reheat the oil so they can send it down the pipeline 

easier. 

In the last 2 years, Alaskans have seen the loss of jobs on the 

North Slope, as oil prices have declined over the last 2 years. With 

oil prices in January 2016 reaching the low of $25 a barrel, 

Alaskans started to wonder if the state was going to go through another 1980s recession. During this time, ConocoPhillips kept their 

commitment to a project in the NPR-A called GMT-1, Greater 

Moose’s Tooth 1, and in December 2016, work began in the field 

for this project. Without this project, it would have been the slowest winter work season that I can recall in many years. 

With the talk of opening up ANWR Section 1002 for development, and more development in the NPR-A, some say that developing into these areas will harm the environment and the animals. 

I disagree. I have found over the 20 years that I worked in the field 

up on the North Slope that all the producers have a very high regard to protecting the environment, the animals, and the safety of 

personnel are their top priorities. 

Our members at Local 959 depend on the development of new oil 

discoveries on the North Slope. New development equals new jobs 

for our members and has a trickle-down effect on other industries 

around the state where we represent workers. 

In conclusion, Alaska’s oil and gas prospects in ANWR Section 

1002 and the NPR-A hold a big role in American energy for the 

future. It would lessen the burden of importing more oil for the 

United States, it would help the Trans-Alaska Pipeline with its 

throughput problems, it would create jobs in the future, so the next 

generation of workers could earn a living, a good living for themselves and their families. I know this because it has given me the 

opportunity to provide a good living for me and my family. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dixon follows:] 

26 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GARY DIXON JR., VICE PRESIDENT/DIRECTOR OF

CONSTRUCTION, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 959, ALASKA

Thank you Chairman Gosar and members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify regarding ‘‘Promoting Onshore Oil and Gas Development in 

Alaska.’’ 

My name is Gary Dixon Jr., I am the Vice President and Director of Construction 

for the International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska. Not only 

am I a proud third generation Alaskan, I am a proud third generation member of 

Teamsters Local 959. My grandfather was the first President of Teamsters Local 

959 and my father was the Director of Construction for Local 959, before, during 

and after the building of the Trans Alaska Pipeline. Teamsters Local 959 represents 

5,000 plus workers in the state of Alaska in a vast amount of industries. For example, AT&T Technicians, Installers and Warehousemen state wide, all of the workers 

at Usibelli Coal Mine, maintenance workers at the Kodiak Coast Guard Base, various freight industry companies. The Port of Anchorage, along with our affiliate 

AILU (Anchorage Independent Longshore Union) representing workers at the two 

shipping companies Matson and TOTE. Construction workers state wide and including those working on North Slope of Alaska Oil Fields, Pipeline and Civil construction and maintenance workers maintaining all 800 miles of the Trans Alaska 

Pipeline, from Pump Station #1 to the Valdez Marine Terminal, to name a few of 

the industries we represent workers in the state of Alaska. 

I started my career in 1985, as a Teamster at the age of 18, working in the oil 

fields of the North Slope of Alaska. I worked for Houston Contracting (ASRC owned 

company), a Pipeline company, that had the job of laying 200 miles of pipe in a 

newly developed field called Kuparuk. I started off as a flatbed driver. Over the 

years of working on the North Slope, I worked my way up the ladder of positions 

and eventually became a General Foreman for Houston Contracting, starting the development of a new field named Alpine. I was 29 and it was the biggest Pipeline 

job to hit the North Slope since the development of Kuparuk. Over the years I would 

work the winters on the North Slope Pipelining and the summers working on the 

Trans Alaska Pipeline, doing maintenance work. After 20 years working in the field, 

I became a Business Representative for Teamsters Local 959. I represent workers 

in the Construction Industry and mainly those on the North Slope and those working on the Trans Alaska Pipeline. 

Over the years there was the good times of the boom of building the Trans Alaska 

Pipeline to the bad times in the Alaska economy in the mid to late 1980s. There 

was very little work at the recently developed North Slope back then and the 

Alaska’s economy spiraled downward. Real estate prices pummeled, people filling for 

bankruptcy, banks closing, people started to leave Alaska. It was a wake-up call 

most will never forget. 

The economy in Alaska has a large dependency on the Oil industry, (see 

attachment McDowell report). Other industries combined do not make up the 

amount of jobs, wages, and overall economic impact the Oil industry has for the people of Alaska. It’s not all about the jobs the industry provides on the North Slope, 

it’s also about the indirect jobs it creates to the Alaska economy and to other states 

in the Lower 48. 

New Oil development is important to the Trans Alaska Pipeline System. The 

Trans Alaska Pipeline at its peak in 1988 had 2 million barrels of oil going through 

it a day. Today it has in the neighborhood of 500,000 barrels a day as a throughput 

average. Which creates problems for Alyeska Pipeline company that operates it for 

the North Slope Producers. The Trans Alaska Pipeline was built for full capacity 

and over the years of steady decline in oil production on the North Slope, it is running at much lower volume than originally designed. Oil temperature and wax 

buildup are the problems, with the pipeline more than half empty, the temperature 

drops and the oil takes longer to get to the terminal in Valdez. It has created such 

a problem for Alyeska pipeline that they have engineered at a site in the interior 

of Alaska along the pipeline, that reheats the oil, through a looping system, several 

times before they return it to the Trans Alaska Pipeline to go south to Valdez. 

Alaskans have seen the loss of jobs on the North Slope for the last 2 years. With 

oil prices around $25 a barrel, in the beginning of 2016, Alaskans started to wonder 

if the state was going to go through another ‘‘late 1980s’’ again. ConocoPhillips, kept 

their commitment to a project in the NPR-A called GMT-1 (Greater Mooses Tooth 

1). In December of 2016, work began in the field for this project. Nanuq, Inc. was 

awarded the contract to build the ice roads and the 8-mile gravel road and 10-acre 

gravel pad for ConocoPhillips new drill site, that would tie into the Alpine field. 

Houston Contracting was awarded the building of all Pipelines for this Project. Over 

500 workers just between these two contractors alone were put to work on this 

27 

project. It will take two winter seasons to finish this project. Besides GMT-1, it was 

a slow winter season on the North Slope of Alaska. 

ANWR Section 1002 and NPR-A, some say that developing into these two areas 

will harm the environment and the animals. I disagree. In the mid 1990s the company I was working for on the North Slope was asked by one of the Producers to 

provide a bus driver for a group of environmentalists that would be touring around 

the Prudhoe Bay field. So the company complied and sent them a bus driver, one 

that had been around the oil field for awhile, to drive these people around, while 

the tour guide spoke to the group. The group kept seeing these caribous laying 

under the module buildings and around the equipment, in particular the 1400 air 

compressor. That compressor was on wheels and was big and noisy. Finally after 

seeing this multiple times, one of the environmentalists asked why would the 

caribou be hanging around these buildings and equipment? Isn’t it afraid or nervous 

being around these man-made items and equipment that was running so loud? The 

bus driver had heard enough and stopped the bus. He said to all of them, ‘‘these 

animals don’t know any better, these buildings and equipment where here before 

they were. In essence, they where raised up seeing these things and furthermore 

they use the buildings and equipment to their advantage for shelter from the mosquitos. The air compressors engine blew air on them and that kept the mosquitos 

away also.’’ 

I have found over the 20 years I worked on the North Slope that all of the 

Producers have a high regard for the environment. They build ice roads to travel 

on in the winter time to protect the tundra and its vegetation. Around May, they 

start to melt away, every year, leaving new people to the North Slope in the summer time wondering how, ‘‘how did they put that pipeline across the land and there 

are no marks on the ground?’’ Protecting the environment, the animals and safety 

of personnel, are top priorities of the Producers. They are constantly talking about 

those subjects to the men and women working in the field. 

In conclusion, Alaska’s oil and gas prospects in ANWR Section 1002 and NPR-A 

hold a big role in American energy for the future. It would lessen the burden of importing more oil for the United States. It would help the Trans Alaska Pipeline with 

its throughput problems. It would create jobs in the future, so that the next generation of workers could earn a good living for them and their families. 

***** 

ATTACHMENT 


26388.004.eps
28 


26388.005.eps 26388.006.eps 26388.007.eps
29 


26388.008.eps 26388.009.eps 26388.010.eps
30 


26388.011.eps 26388.012.eps 26388.013.eps

Local Employment and Wages Impacts ... 

Kenai Peninsula Borough 

• 5,045 jobs and $400 million in wages 

• 20% of total jobs and 25% of total wages 

• 6 of top 10 KPB property tax payers are oil & gas companies 

Mat-Su Borough 

• 3,270 jobs oil & gas industry jobs held by Mat-Su residents 

earning $287 million in wages 

• 8% of total Mat-Su resident jobs and wages 

* lncluCes pnvo~te \f'ctor 'i;'lf'nd.rq i·r~pact'> only, t>>.:clvae., JOb., reli'lt<'d to ttJ:<t><, and 

royd:trPs paHi to .. tllte qow•rnmPnt 

Local Employment and Wages Impacts .. . 

North Slope Borough 

• ~,845 jobs and $~05 million in wages for NSB 

residents 

• 97% ($373 million) of all NSB property tax revenue 

Valdez 

• 68o jobs and $7~ million in wages 

• 88% ($43 million) of all Valdez property t ax revenue 

The Big Takeaways .. . 

· This study measured ~03,875 oil and gas 

industry-related jobs and $6 o billion in wages 

in 20~6 

• 32% of all wage and salary j obs and 35% of all 

wages in Alaska can be attribut ed to the oil and 

gas industry 
31 

Mr. BISHOP [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Dixon. 

We will now recognize Mr. Pourchot for your testimony. You 

have 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF PAT POURCHOT, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR ALASKA 

AFFAIRS, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Mr. POURCHOT. Thank you very much, Chairman Gosar and 

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of 

the Subcommittee. Thank you for the privilege of allowing me to 

testify. Today, I am testifying as a retired public servant and private citizen. Over my past 45 years in Alaska, I have served as a 

Senator and Representative in the Alaska State Legislature, 

Commissioner of the State Department of Natural Resources, 

Senior Policy Representative with Audubon Alaska, and, most recently, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for Alaska 

Affairs. 

I wish to focus my remarks on the National Petroleum ReserveAlaska, or Reserve, and specifically how the integrated activity 

plan, or IAP, has allowed ongoing oil and gas leasing and development, while protecting wildlife values in the Reserve. 

I would say at the onset the IAP was a science-based, wellbalanced approach to both oil development and protection about 

standing wildlife resources. Oil leasing and development in the 

Reserve is happening. The plan is alive and well. Surgery is not 

necessary. 

Since 1999, approximately 5.6 million acres have been leased in 

the Reserve, including over 1.1 million acres leased during the last 

administration. In 2010, an IAP was initiated for all the lands in 

the Reserve. 

The formulation of this plan was characterized by: (1) Significant 

public outreach and input. The draft EIS received over 400,000 

comments. Extensive hearings and public meetings were held, and 

consultation was conducted with affected tribes and Native 

corporations. 

(2) A careful crafting of land use designations that balances statutory provisions for oil and gas leasing and for protecting key wildlife and other surface resources. Approximately 52 percent, or 11.8 

million acres of the 23 million-acre Reserve, which contains approximately 72 percent of the estimated recoverable oil, is available 

for oil and gas leasing. 

While the 1976 Transfer Act called for the leasing of oil and gas 

in the Reserve, it also called for the protection and designation of 

special areas of environmental subsistence, recreational, fish and 

wildlife, and historical or scenic values. Teshekpuk Lake, the 

Utukok River Uplands, and the Colville River were designated by 

the Secretary in 1977 as special areas. 

(3) Recognition of existing and potential oil and gas lease areas. 

Large areas south of Teshekpuk Lake Special Area within and adjacent to known oil and gas units remain available for oil and gas 

leasing. At the last lease sale in December, nearly half-a-million 

acres were leased by ConocoPhillips in this area. 

(4) Recognition of Reserve lands by local residents. The plan 

seeks to protect subsistence resources, including caribou, waterVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:04 Oct 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\115TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERAL\07-18-17\26388.TXT DARLEN
32 

fowl, marine mammals, and fish. Of particular importance is the 

40,000-head Teshekpuk caribou herd, where between 3,000–5,000 

animals have been annually harvested by local residents. Most of 

the calving migration routes and insect relief areas have been protected within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. Similarly, 40 

villages stretching from the North Slope to the Yukon Delta depend 

on the harvest of the 200,000-head Western Arctic caribou herd, 

the largest in Alaska—perhaps the largest in North America now. 

The primary calving and insect relief areas of this herd are protected in the Utukok River Upland Special Area. 

While the plan recognizes the potential for economically 

recoverable oil in the Teshekpuk Lake area, 3.1 million acres in the 

T-Lake Special Area are not available for leasing because of the importance of the Teshekpuk Lake caribou herd, the internationally 

important waterfowl nesting, migration, and molting areas surrounding the lake, ESA-listed species, including polar bears, spectacled and Steller’s eiders, and the highest breeding density of 

shorebirds in the circumpolar Arctic. 

No leasing north or west of the lake has occurred under any 

Federal administration over the past 40 years. There will always 

be changing circumstances and new information that may warrant 

future changes to the AIP. But the base information and the formulation of the current AIP are sound, they are in accord with law, 

and strike a fair and reasonable balance in the treatment of the 

natural resources owned by all the citizens of this country. 

Any changes to the plan should take the deliberative time and 

effort that went into the original construction of the plan. The impacts of ongoing development and the Arctic’s rapidly changing 

environment are far from known. A precautionary approach to land 

use decisions should be followed, while research continues and results brought forward. 

The management plan for the NPR-A is not broken. It is 

working. It is worthy of continued implementation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pourchot follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAT POURCHOT

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the privilege of 

allowing me to testify today on this important topic. Although I have served in several roles in the past with direct involvement in oil and gas issues in Alaska, today 

I am testifying as a retired public servant and private citizen. 

My past ‘‘lives’’ over 45 years in Alaska have included serving as a Senator and 

Representative in the Alaska State Legislature, Commissioner of the Alaska State 

Department of Natural Resources, Senior Policy Representative with Audubon 

Alaska, and most recently, Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior for 

Alaska Affairs. These positions have obviously provided me varying viewpoints and 

experiences with land management and oil and gas issues in Alaska. 

Over the past several decades interest in Federal onshore oil and gas leasing has 

been focused on the North Slope of Alaska, primarily in two large Federal management units: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A or ‘‘Reserve’’). Oil and gas leasing has not been permitted 

under law in the Arctic Refuge. Because any future oil and gas leasing or development requires congressional action, I wish to focus my remarks on the NPR-A, and 

specifically on how the comprehensive management plan (Integrated Activity Plan 

or ‘‘IAP’’) has allowed ongoing oil and gas leasing and development while protecting 

important wildlife values in the Reserve. 

33 

I would say at the onset, the IAP was a science-based, well-balanced approach to 

both oil development and protection of outstanding wildlife resources. Oil leasing 

and development in the Reserve is happening. The plan is alive and well, surgery 

is not necessary. 

Management of the former Naval Petroleum Reserve #4 was transferred to the 

Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA) in 1976. Although there was some leasing 

in the early 1980s, all leases expired by 1992 without development. After management plans for some of Reserve lands were completed, leasing was renewed in 1999 

and continued at intervals to 2010. In 2011 President Obama called for annual lease 

sales in the Reserve which have continued through last year. Since 1999 approximately 5.6 million acres have been leased including over 1.1 million acres leased 

during the last administration. It should be noted that over that time significant 

numbers of leases have been relinquished or have expired. 

Prior to 2010, management plans were only completed for the NE and NW 

sections of the Reserve. In 2010 a comprehensive Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) was 

initiated for all lands in the Reserve to review and utilize updated resource information, ESA listings, and oil and gas assessments in management decisions. It also 

examined the influences of conditions and activities outside the Reserve, notably 

climate change and oil exploration in the Chukchi Sea. A final EIS was completed 

in late 2012 and a final plan adopted in early 2013. The formulation of this plan 

was characterized by: 

1. Significant public outreach and input. The scoping document received 

147,000 comments, the Draft EIS received over 400,000 comments, extensive 

hearings and public meetings were held on the North Slope and elsewhere in 

Alaska, input was received from four cooperating agencies (State of Alaska, 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and 

the North Slope Borough), and consultation was conducted with affected 

tribes and Native corporations. 

In addition to the extensive public outreach and input, the plan created a 

‘‘Working Group’’ composed of local governments, tribes and Native corporations to advise the BLM on a continuing basis of management issues and 

needs. 

2. Extensive review of scientific research and data with respect to 

resources of the Reserve and use of this resource information in the 

land use designations and stipulations contained in the IAP. The plan 

utilized USGS estimates of recoverable oil reserves (1 billion barrels), most 

of which was in the Northeast portion of the Reserve. The plan also recognized the documented important wildlife values of the Reserve, including the 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd, the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, ESA designated 

endangered and threatened species, migrating and molting waterfowl, marine 

mammals, and other significant fish and wildlife resources. 

3. A careful crafting of land use designations and stipulations that 

balances the dictates of the NPRPA for oil and gas leasing, and for 

protecting key wildlife and other surface resources. Approximately 52 

percent, or 11.8 million acres, of 23-million acre Reserve is available for oil 

and gas leasing which contains approximately 72 percent (549 million barrels) 

of the estimated recoverable discovered and undiscovered oil. Several ‘‘Special 

Areas’’ are designated in recognition of internationally significant wildlife and 

habitat including the Utukok River Uplands Special Area and the Teshekpuk 

Lake Special Area. 

While the NPRPA as amended called for the leasing of oil and gas in the 

Reserve, it also contained specific language related to the protection of other 

natural resources. SEC. 103(b) authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate rules and regulations as necessary for the protection of environmental, fish and wildlife, and historical or scenic values. SEC. 104(b) enables 

the Secretary to designate areas containing any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic values, including specifically 

the Utukok River and the Teshekpuk Lake areas. Any exploration within 

those designated areas must be conducted in a manner assuring the maximum protection of those surface values. Both areas, along with the Colville 

River, were designated by the Secretary in 1977 as Special Areas. 

34 

4. Recognition in land use designations of potential needs for infrastructure required from adjacent offshore oil and gas. Approximately 14 

million acres are available for infrastructure needs associated with potential 

offshore oil and gas development in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, including 

areas within Special Areas. See Map A. Pipelines and other infrastructure 

were specifically allowed in the northern part of the Utukok River Uplands 

Special Area in recognition of potential pipeline needs from Chukchi Sea oil 

and gas development. Similarly, large sections of the southern and western 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area remain available for potential pipeline needs 

from Beaufort Sea oil development. 

MAP A 

5. Recognition of existing and potential oil and gas lease areas and 

developments in land use designations. Large areas south of the 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area within and adjacent to known oil and gas units 

(Colville Delta, Greater Mooses Tooth, Bear Tooth) remain available for oil 

and gas leasing (See Map B). At the recent lease sale in December of 2016, 

nearly 1⁄2 million acres were leased by ConocoPhillips in this area west and 

south of the ‘‘Willow’’ well discovery within the Greater Mooses Tooth unit. 

MAP B 


26388.001.eps 26388.002.eps
35 

6. Recognition of the use of NPR-A lands by local village residents, 

especially for subsistence and cultural activities. Many North Slope 

village residents are highly dependent on the harvesting of fish and wildlife 

resources from Reserve lands. The plan seeks to protect these subsistence resources including caribou, waterfowl, marine mammals, and fish. Of particular importance to Barrow, Atqasuk, and Nuiqsut is the 40,000-head 

Teshekpuk Caribou Herd where between 3,000 and 5,000 animals have been 

annually harvested. Most of the calving, migration routes, and insect relief 

areas have been protected within the Teshekpuk Lake Special Area. See Map 

C. Similarly, 40 villages stretching from the North Slope to the Yukon Delta 

depend on harvest of the 200,000-head Western Arctic Caribou Herd, the largest in Alaska and at present perhaps the largest in North America. The primary calving and insect relief areas of this herd are protected in the Utukok 

River Uplands Special Area. 

MAP C 

Some have criticized the plan’s restrictions on oil and gas leasing in approximately 48 percent of the Reserve. It needs to be pointed out that of the 11 million 

acres closed to oil and gas leasing, over 7 million acres lie within the Utukok River 

Uplands Special Area in the SW part of the Reserve. USGS estimated recoverable 

oil in this area to be very low. Although there was some potential for gas resources 

in this area, distance to Prudhoe Bay infrastructure, large existing reserves of 

natural gas around Prudhoe Bay, and the absence of a gasline make development 

of these gas resources economically challenged. 

The plan did recognize the medium to high potential for economically recoverable 

oil in the Teshekpuk Lake area. The plan expanded the existing Teshekpuk Lake 

Special Area and restricted oil and gas leasing in 3.1 million acres in recognition 

of the importance of: (1) The Teshekpuk Caribou Herd’s calving, migration, and insect-relief areas; (2) The internationally important waterfowl nesting, migration, 

and molting area surrounding the lake (100,000 molting geese, including up to 30 

percent of the Pacific Flyway Brant); (3) ESA-listed species including Polar Bear, 

Spectacled and Steller’s eiders, Yellow-billed loon nesting (previous Candidate for 

listing); and (4) Shorebirds—Teshekpuk Special Area has the highest breeding 

density of shorebirds in the circumpolar Arctic. 

The lands surrounding Teshekpuk Lake have received special designation and 

protection since transfer in 1976. No leasing north or west of the Lake has occurred 

under any Federal administration over the past 40 years. 

Under the plan approximately 28 percent of estimated recoverable oil resources 

would not be available for leasing and development. However, it should be noted 

that the plan based economically recoverable oil on $180/barrel and natural gas recovery on $8.67/Mcf. This week Alaska oil is selling around $47/barrel and natural 

gas around $3/Mcf (or billion BTUs). At today’s prices recoverable oil and gas 

estimates, particularly outside of the current oil and gas units, were probably 

overstated. 


26388.003.eps
36 

Other changes since adoption of the plan include the abandonment of Shell’s 

Chukchi Sea exploration program and the relinquishment of most oil and gas leases 

in the Chukchi. Consequently, the potential for cross-reserve pipelines or other related infrastructure for oil development in the Chukchi is considerably reduced in 

the predictable future. Of note, since the plan’s adoption, litigation, including by environmental groups, has been greatly reduced and no proposed oil development 

within the Reserve has been stopped. 

No plan is sacrosanct or immutable. There will always be changing circumstances, 

changing environments, and new information that may warrant changes to the IAP. 

But, the base information and the consideration of that information in the formulation of the IAP are sound, in accord with law, and strike a fair and reasonable balance in the treatment of the natural resources owned by all the citizens of this 

country. Any changes to the plan will and should take the deliberative time and effort that went into its original construction. The impacts of ongoing development, 

the Arctic’s rapidly changing climate, human interactions, and other factors on fish 

and wildlife populations are far from known and research is ongoing. Much more 

needs to be learned and a precautionary approach to land use decisions should be 

followed while this research continues and results brought forward. 

The management plan for the NPR-A is not broken, it is working, it is worthy 

of continued implementation. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO PAT POURCHOT, FORMER SPECIAL

ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR FOR ALASKA AFFAIRS

Questions Submitted by Rep. Gosar 

Question 1. During the hearing, you stated that there are studies indicating that 

oil and gas development has a negative impact on species in the North Slope region. 

Will you provide copies of these studies for the Committee? 

Answer. As I testified, there are a number of studies over the past several decades 

that have shown negative impacts on wildlife of activities associated with oil and 

gas development on Alaska’s North Slope, including the National Petroleum 

Reserve-Alaska. 

A comprehensive study was conducted by the National Academies, National 

Research Council’s Committee on Cumulative Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas 

Activities on Alaska’s North Slope. The 2003 report of the Committee documented 

a number of impacts from North Slope oil development. A summary of the report 

is attached. 

Impacts on caribou. Attached is a 2002 study by Cameron, et. al. discussing impacts of oil development on the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. Also attached are comments on the IAP DEIS from several conservation groups containing citations for 

studies finding negative impacts on caribou calving (see pp. 11–13). 

Impacts on birds. Attached is a 2009 study by Liebezeit, et. al. ‘‘Influence of 

human development and predators on nest survival of tundra birds, Arctic Coastal 

Plain, Alaska.’’ 

Also attached is a 1993 study by M.W. Miller et. al. ‘‘A simulation model of 

helicopter disturbance of molting Pacific black brant.’’ 

See also page 9 of the attached conservation group IAP DEIS comment letter for 

references to studies demonstrating impacts of development activities on molting 

geese. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Lowenthal 

Question 1. During the hearing, Representative Young stated that ‘‘we should listen 

to the people who live there’’ when it comes to development on the North Slope. Did 

the Obama administration listen to the people who live on the North Slope during 

development of the NPR-A IAP and the ANWR CCP? If so, what were their positions 

on those efforts and their outcomes, and what are the positions of North Slope communities regarding additional development in ANWR, the NPR-A and other nearby 

regions? 

Answer. During scoping of the NPR-A IAP the BLM held eight public meetings 

in Alaska and received approximately 147,000 comments. During review of the 

Draft IAP/EIS the BLM held nine public meetings in Alaska and received more than 

401,000 comments. In addition consultation during the IAP process occurred with 

a number of tribal organizations and Native corporations in the NPR-A region. 

Attached are resolutions of support from 28 regional villages and Native organizaVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:04 Oct 18, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\ENERGY & MINERAL\07-18-17\26388.TXT DARLEN
37 

tions for management protections for caribou herds and associated habitat in the 

NPR-A. In response the BLM designated key calving, insect-relief, and migration 

routes for the Western Arctic Caribou Herd and the Teshekpuk Caribou Herd as 

special areas where oil and gas development would not be permitted. 

During development of the CCP for the Arctic Refuge eight scoping meetings were 

held and over 94,000 comments received. Six public meetings were held on the Draft 

CCP/EIS and over 612,000 comments were received. Most commenters favored wilderness designation of the Coastal Plain of the Refuge. In addition, consultation was 

held with nine tribal entities in the region. 

Attached are resolutions from four Alaska Native organizations representing 

dozens of tribal entities supporting wilderness protection of the Coastal Plain of the 

Arctic Refuge. In addition, attached are comments from the Gwich’in Steering 

Committee on the CCP in support of wilderness designation of the Coastal Plain of 

the Arctic Refuge. Also attached a resolution of support from Gwich’in Niintsyaa of 

wilderness designation of the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge to prevent oil development and protect the porcupine caribou herd. The CCP Record of Decision recommended wilderness designation of the Coastal Plain of the Refuge. 

***** 

The following documents were submitted as attachments to Mr. Pourchot’s 

responses. These documents are part of the hearing record and are being retained 

in the Committee’s official files: 

—The National Academies, Report in Brief, ‘‘Cumulative Environmental Effects 

of Oil and Gas Activities on Alaska’s North Slope’’ 

—Arctic, Vol. 58, No. 1 (March 2005), P. 1–9, Cameron, R.D., et al., ‘‘Central 

Arctic Caribou and Petroleum Development: Distributional, Nutritional, and 

Reproductive Implications’’ 

— June 7, 2012 Letter from Audubon Alaska, Ocean Conservancy, and the PEW 

Environment Group to Bud Cribley, State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Office, regarding NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement 

—Ecological Applications, 19(6), 2009, pp. 1628–1644, Liebezeit, J.R., et al., 

‘‘Influence of human development and predators on nest survival of tundra 

birds, Arctic Coastal Plain, Alaska’’ 

—Ecological Modelling, 73 (1994), 293–309, Miller, M.W. et al., ‘‘A simulation 

model of helicopter disturbance of molting Pacific black brant’’ 

— Resolution 11-10-003 Native Village of Unalakleet; Resolution 2012-51 

Tanana Chiefs Conference; Resolution 2012-04 Village of Solomon, Nome, 

Alaska; Resolution 12-07 Native Village of Shishmaref; Resolution 11-25 

Native Village of Shaktoolik; Resolution 12-11 Native Village of Selawik; 

Resolution 12-08 Governing Body of the I.R.A. Council of the Village of Nome; 

Resolution 11-33 Native Village of Noatak; Resolution 11-10-02 Native 

Village of St. Michael; Resolution 2011-20 Native Village of Elim; Resolution 

11-10-11-26 Native Village of Brevig Mission; Resolution 12-01-06-03 Native 

Village of Koyuk; Resolution 2011-16 Native Village of Kobuk; Resolution 12- 

09 Native Village of Kivalina; Resolution 2012-10 Native Village of Kawerak; 

Resolution 11-05 Native Village of Kaktovik; Resolution 2011-16 In ̃upiat 

Community of the Arctic Slope; Resolution 11-24 Deering IRA Council; Resolution 2012-09 City of Wainwright; Resolution 2012-03 Anaktuvuk Pass Village Council; Resolution 12-01 Allakaket Tribal Council; Resolution 2011-24 

Native Village of White Mountain; Resolution 2012-03 Native Village of Point 

Hope; Resolution 11-10 Native Village of Wales; Resolution 12-08-01 Native 

Village of Council; Resolution 12-63 Native Village of Buckland; Resolution 

12-07 Noorvik Native Community; Resolution 2012-08 Native Village of Point 

Lay IRA Council 

— Letters of Support for the Arctic Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

from United Tribes of Bristol Bay, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Council of 

Athabascan Tribal Governments and Native American Rights Fund 

— Gwich’in Steering Committee, Comments on Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge—Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Nov. 15, 2011 

— Gwich’in Niintsyaa 2016, Resolution to Protect the Birthplace and Nursery 

Grounds of the Porcupine Caribou Herd 

38 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. 

Now we will turn to Mr. Jepsen for your 5 minutes. You are 

recognized. 

STATEMENT OF SCOTT JEPSEN, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL 

AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORTATION, CONOCO PHILLIPS 

ALASKA, ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 

Mr. JEPSEN. Thank you. Chairman Bishop, Chairman Gosar, 

Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources, my name is Scott Jepsen, and I am 

Vice President of External Affairs and Transportation for 

ConocoPhillips, Alaska. 

During my 37-year career, I have been responsible for oil and gas 

fields in the Lower 48, the North Slope, and Cook Inlet, located in 

South-Central Alaska. I am currently in my second assignment in 

Alaska, where, all told, I have spent about 29 years of my career. 

On behalf of ConocoPhillips, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee today to provide testimony regarding 

our experience developing oil and natural gas resources in Alaska, 

and particularly in the National Petroleum Reserve, or NPR-A. 

ConocoPhillips is the world’s largest independent exploration and 

production company. We are a global company with operations and 

activities in 17 countries. In the Lower 48, we have operations and/ 

or acreage positions in the home states of many of the members of 

the Subcommittee, specifically Texas, Louisiana, Colorado, New 

Mexico, and Wyoming. 

In Alaska, ConocoPhillips is the leading North Slope producer. 

We have a nearly 50-year record of operating safely, reliably, and 

in an environmentally sound manner, despite the North Slope’s 

Arctic conditions and remote location. We have also been one of the 

leading North Slope explorers, especially in NPR-A. 

The North Slope contains some of the Nation’s most productive 

oil fields, as well as substantial exploration potential, and the 

economic benefits to the state, municipalities, businesses, Native 

corporations, shareholders, and the residents of Alaska have been 

significant. Our operations in Alaska have created jobs for thousands of Alaskans, generated business opportunities for companies 

in Alaska and the Lower 48, and generated tens of billions of dollars in tax and royalty revenue for Federal, state, and local 

government. 

Our efforts and those of other oil companies who continue to invest in existing fields and explore and develop new fields has been 

essential to maintaining the flow in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, 

which currently transports around 500,000 barrels of oil per day. 

The exploration program ConocoPhillips has been pursuing in 

NPR-A since 2000 has resulted in multiple discoveries, namely 

Greater Moose’s Tooth 1, otherwise known as GMT-1, Greater 

Moose’s Tooth 2, or GMT-2, and Willow. With the start-up of drill 

sites CD-5 in the Alpine field, substantial production is starting to 

flow from NPR-A lands. We are continuing to explore in NPR-A 

and hope to make substantial new discoveries in the future. 

As we have moved from the exploration phase to production 

phase in NPR-A, we have found the permitting process to often be 

longer than expected, more difficult, costlier, and uncertain. We 

39 

would like to see the Federal Government and the BLM, in particular, improve their processes to eliminate elements that do not 

add value. Here are some suggestions that would address this goal. 

First, shorten the permitting time frame. The time to receive a 

Record of Decision for GMT-1 was 19 months. For GMT-2, essentially a carbon copy of GMT-1, we are anticipating about 34 to 35 

months. It took 11 months just to issue the SEIS notice of intent. 

Simply tightening up internal processes may be sufficient to shorten the permitting time frame. 

Second, do not implement new regulations or mitigation requirements without first assessing and recognizing measures already in 

place. In NPR-A, there are currently 265 best management practices and mitigation requirements, in addition to a Federal 

revenue-sharing requirement that provides funds for North Slope 

communities impacted by oil and gas development in NPR-A. 

ConocoPhillips is not asking that the existing requirements be relaxed or eliminated, but rather, the BLM should take into consideration existing measures before implementing any new mitigation 

requirements. 

Third, provide reasonable and cost-effective interpretation of existing regulations. For GMT-1, the BLM has required that we include full separation of oil, gas, and water for royalty measurement 

purposes. This added about $15 million to the cost of the project. 

We believe the BLM had the ability to have approved a different, 

less costly methodology. 

We would also ask BLM to reconsider the lands that are unavailable for leasing in the northeast sector of NPR-A. The 2013 NPRA Record of Decision made a significant area of land unavailable 

for leasing in this area. We believe the Record of Decision placed 

more land off limits than is needed to protect wildlife and subsistence resources. 

And last, there is intense competition for oil and gas investment 

dollars. The remoteness and challenging Arctic conditions of NPRA already put it at a cost disadvantage to other locales. Unnecessary requirements that impose additional costs or delay development could ultimately make investment opportunities at NPR-A 

non-competitive. 

Recently, we have been encouraged by changes in the Department of the Interior’s philosophy regarding the management of 

Federal lands. We are hopeful that these changes will address the 

issues that I have discussed today. 

ConocoPhillips recognizes and applauds the Subcommittee’s 

sincere interest in ensuring the energy future of our Nation, and 

we appreciate the opportunity we have had today to share our 

views and experience. I will be happy to answer any questions that 

the Subcommittee members may have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jepsen follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SCOTT JEPSEN, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND

TRANSPORTATION, CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Gosar, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of the Subcommittee 

on Energy and Mineral Resources: my name is Scott Jepsen, and I am Vice 

President of External Affairs and Transportation, ConocoPhillips Alaska. 

ConocoPhillips appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony to the Committee 

40 

regarding our experience developing oil and natural gas resources in Alaska, and 

particularly in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). 

CONOCOPHILLIPS OVERVIEW

ConocoPhillips is the world’s largest independent oil and natural gas exploration 

and production company based on proved reserves and production. Headquartered 

in Houston, Texas, we are a global company with operations and activities in 17 

countries, $88 billion in total assets, and approximately 13,100 employees as of 

March 31, 2017. Production excluding Libya averaged 1.584 million barrels of oil 

equivalent per day during the year’s first quarter, and proved reserves were 6.4 

billion equivalent barrels as of year-end 2016. Our largest sources of production include the Lower 48 U.S. states, Alaska, Canada, Europe and North Africa, and Asia 

Pacific and Middle East. In the Lower 48 specifically, we have operations and/or 

acreage in many of the home states of the members of this Subcommittee including 

in Texas, Colorado, New Mexico, Wyoming and Louisiana. 

OUR ALASKA PRESENCE AND HISTORY

ConocoPhillips is Alaska’s largest oil producer, with significant interests in the 

Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk River and Colville River units; we serve as operator of the 

latter two units. Approximately 1,100 employees and 1,800 contractors work in our 

Alaska operations, and we are one of Alaska’s most active North Slope explorers and 

developers. Our 50-year history in Alaska goes back to the early days of Cook Inlet 

development and North Slope exploration. One of our heritage companies, ARCO 

Alaska, discovered the Prudhoe Bay Field. Another, Phillips Petroleum, helped create the Asia Pacific LNG market with construction of the Kenai plant and initiation 

of international sales to Japan in 1969. We have been in Alaska since the founding 

of its modern oil and gas industry, and with our large Federal and state leasehold 

positions plan to be there for decades to come. We are currently, along with 

Anadarko, our co-venturer in the Colville River Unit, the most active explorer and 

developer in the NPR-A. We see significant potential for long-term development in 

NPR-A. 

CURRENT EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION ACTIVITY

Alpine Field 

The Alpine Field (contained within the Colville River Unit), the westernmost field 

on the North Slope, extends into the NPR-A. Alpine was discovered in 1994 by 

ARCO Alaska and came on production in 2000. Colville River Unit production 

peaked in 2007 at approximately 139,000 barrels of oil per day (BOPD) gross and 

today is producing around 60,000 BOPD gross. 

Alpine has no permanent road connection to other North Slope infrastructure. 

Each winter, we build an ice road connecting Kuparuk to Alpine and transport 

enough supplies and equipment for the entire operating year, requiring more than 

1,500 truckloads. More than 8 years of environmental studies guided conceptual development of the field, enabling engineers and environmental experts to locate drill 

sites and facilities to minimize impacts on the subsistence lifestyle of North Slope 

Alaska Natives, and on wildlife and waterfowl. 

Alpine is located partially on Kuukpik Corporation (the Native village corporation 

for the nearby village of Nuiqsut) lands, with a portion of the subsurface owned by 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, the Alaska Native regional corporation for the 

North Slope. The state of Alaska is also a mineral owner in Alpine. 

Alpine has a very small land footprint, made possible through continually progressing modern drilling and production technology. The total footprint of the roads, 

pads and processing facilities in the Colville River Unit is about 220 acres. This represents about 0.3 percent of the total area currently under development. The field 

has been developed through use of extended-reach and horizontal drilling that optimizes efficient use of the land. For example, each of Alpine’s 12-acre drilling pads 

can access approximately 55 square miles of the deep subsurface. By comparison, 

in the 1970s a 65-acre pad could provide access to only about 3 square miles of subsurface. ConocoPhillips recently contracted for construction of an advanced drilling 

rig that will more than double the area that can be developed from a drill site to 

approximately 125 square miles. Additionally, Alpine is a near-zero discharge facility that uses clean-burning natural gas for power generation, and supplies natural 

gas (free of charge) to Nuiqsut for power and residential heating. 

CD5 Development 

About one-third of Alpine’s production comes from drill site CD5, the latest development in the Colville River Unit. CD5 began producing in October 2015. CD5 

41 

produces oil and gas from Federal, State/ASRC joint lands, and Alaska Native 

corporation-owned lands inside the NPR-A. It is the first commercial oil development on Alaska Native corporation land in the NPR-A. 

CD5’s current production of 20,000+ (BOPD) gross has exceeded our original peak 

production estimate of 16,000 BOPD gross. Over 700 people were employed during 

the peak winter construction seasons in 2014 and 2015. In 2016, additional wells 

were approved raising the total well count to 33 and total investment in the project 

to $1.3 billion. The additional wells are planned to come on-line in the third quarter 

of this year, and are expected to further increase production at CD5. 

Greater Mooses Tooth Developments 

ConocoPhillips has identified other development opportunities in the Greater 

Mooses Tooth (GMT) Unit in NPR-A that capitalize on existing infrastructure, thus 

minimizing the need for new facilities. Approximately 8 miles west of CD5, the 

Greater Mooses Tooth #1 (GMT1) development was sanctioned for funding in 

November 2015, with the first construction season completed this past April. It will 

require total investment of approximately $900 million gross and employ about 700 

people during each of two winter construction seasons, ultimately yielding estimated 

gross peak production of around 30,000 BOPD with first oil expected in late 2018. 

We also filed permits in August 2015 for Greater Mooses Tooth #2 (GMT2). We 

hope to approve funding of the project by the second quarter of 2018, with first oil 

planned for late 2021. Total investment will exceed $1 billion. The proposed drill 

site will accommodate up to 48 wells, with estimated gross peak monthly production 

of 25,000–30,000 BOPD. Peak employment during construction will be similar to 

GMT1, about 700 positions. Since both GMT1 and GMT2 are near Alpine, they will 

utilize existing pipelines and processing facilities. 

Willow Discovery 

In January we announced Willow, a new oil discovery in the western portion of 

the GMT Unit, about 28 miles west of the Alpine Central Facility. Initial estimates 

indicate recoverable resource potential exceeding 300 million barrels of oil. Subject 

to future appraisal results and development options, Willow could produce up to 

100,000 BOPD. This past winter we began appraisal work using 3D seismic data 

analysis. 

Further Exploration 

We are currently considering up to a four-well 2018 winter exploratory drilling 

program in the NPR-A, subject to final budget approval. Three wells would better 

define the Willow discovery and one would target potential new resources. 

Our recent exploration successes in NPR-A were the basis for our substantial 

acreage acquisition in the December 2016 NPR-A lease sale. Jointly, ConocoPhillips 

and Anadarko acquired 594,972 gross acres contiguous to current lease holdings. We 

are now developing plans for assessing and exploring this acreage. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

At 24 million acres, the NPR-A is an area the size of Indiana. The surface occupancy of our current operations and planned developments is approximately 185 

acres, or 0.0008 percent of the NPR-A’s surface area. The lessons learned from almost 50 years of North Slope experience have enabled us to significantly reduce our 

operational footprint and successfully produce oil and gas with minimal environmental impact. 

ConocoPhillips embraces our role in responsibly accessing, developing and producing oil and natural gas, and cares deeply about the environment. As we have 

for decades, ConocoPhillips sponsors and employs environmental studies to better 

understand everything from air quality, hydrology and archeology to populations of 

mammals, birds and fish. Many studies are carried out cooperatively, working with 

local communities, government agencies and stakeholders to assess and monitor the 

ecosystems in which we operate. 

Air Quality 

For decades ConocoPhillips has monitored North Slope air quality, with one of the 

monitoring stations in operation since 1999 in Nuiqsut, the village nearest our oil 

exploration and production operations. The results are shared with various North 

Slope communities, including Nuiqsut, and with state and Federal regulatory agencies. The measurements show that North Slope air quality at all locations is consistently better than national ambient air quality standards. 

42 

Wildlife Protection 

Caribou are an important subsistence resource for all North Slope Native communities. For more than 20 years, ConocoPhillips has collaborated with regulatory 

agencies to monitor the distribution and movement of the Teshekpuk and Central 

Arctic herds. This long-term study is important for ensuring our operations have 

minimal effect on caribou habitat and migration. 

For nearly 10 years, ConocoPhillips has consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service on annual polar bear den detection surveys on the North Slope. Pregnant 

sows construct dens in drifted snow in which to birth and nurse their cubs. Surveys 

are conducted using aircraft equipped with a precision stabilized infrared (IR) 

camera to detect body heat emanating from bear dens. All travel and activity is 

typically prohibited within 1 mile of occupied dens. 

Fishery Protection 

For nearly 30 years, ConocoPhillips has conducted monitoring of a unique North 

Slope subsistence fishery on the Colville River Delta, near our Alpine operations. 

Each fall, Nuiqsut residents set gill nets under the ice to catch Arctic Cisco (locally 

known as Qaaktaq) that have migrated into the delta to overwinter. Fishery biologists work with subsistence fishers to monitor the catch. The survey provides better 

understanding of current fish population dynamics, helps predict future harvests 

and provides insight into key factors that contribute to the health of the fishery. 

Water Resource Protection 

ConocoPhillips remains committed to minimizing the use of valuable freshwater 

resources. We are a leader in coordination of water-sharing agreements between the 

various North Slope operators to protect freshwater sources from overuse. 

Community Relations 

An important element of our operations is our close proximity to the village of 

Nuiqsut. Since we began developing Alpine in the late 1990s, we have worked closely with Nuiqsut to be good neighbors and address concerns about the potential impact of oil and gas development on their lifestyle. We believe the relationships we 

have developed with North Slope residents are mutually beneficial and provide the 

basis for understanding and working together to resolve local concerns. When we 

were permitting CD5, we spent several years working closely with Nuiqsut residents 

to locate one of the bridges to a location that the elders felt would cause the least 

impact to subsistence fishing. 

Our goal is maintaining honest and respectful relationships with our Nuiqsut 

neighbors. We obtain feedback on our operations, and gather local and traditional 

knowledge to help protect subsistence resources. We also support community 

projects and work closely to develop and help fund economic opportunities. Our 

Village Outreach department is in frequent communication with Nuiqsut residents 

to find ways to balance the needs of subsistence resource users with oil and gas 

development. 

ConocoPhillips also works in close collaboration with regulatory agencies and 

other interested stakeholders to design and build infrastructure that minimizes disturbance to wetlands and the unique benefits they provide. For example, in 2015, 

ConocoPhillips constructed a fourth bridge on the road to our new CD5 development 

in a section where the original design concept called for a gravel road with culverts. 

The bridge mitigates potential impacts to hydrologic flow and distribution of nutrients. Another example of our efforts to protect wetlands is our redesign of the gravel 

pads needed for manual pipeline valves. By placing valve pads adjacent to existing 

gravel roads, we avoid the need for new access roads, which translates to a smaller 

footprint. 

BENEFITS OF CONOCOPHILLIPS OPERATIONS

Revenue Generation 

On the North Slope, we work closely with the local borough government, village 

government, Native corporations, state and Federal agencies, and local residents in 

all phases of our operations. Our North Slope operations have generated hundreds 

of millions of dollars in property taxes to the North Slope Borough; tens of billions 

of dollars in royalties, severance taxes, income taxes and additional property taxes 

to the state of Alaska; and hundreds of millions of dollars in payments to the 

Federal Government. We have also paid in excess of a billion dollars to Arctic Slope 

Regional Corporation (ASRC) stemming from production of its minerals underlying 

the Colville River Unit, which under provisions of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANSCA) benefits shareholders in Alaska Native Corporations statewide. 

43 

As development moves farther west into NPR-A, the resulting economic stimulation will continue to benefit the state and Federal governments, as well as North 

Slope residents (see Attachment 1). The GMT1 and GMT2 projects alone, by developing mineral interests held by ASRC, are expected to yield over $700MM in longterm revenue to ASRC. Under ANSCA, ASRC will share 70 percent of its revenue 

with the other Native corporations in the state. 

ATTACHMENT 1 

As development ultimately extends onto primarily Federal mineral interests, the 

benefits to the Federal Government will also increase. Half of the Federal revenues 

derived from oil and gas activities in NPR-A, by Federal statute, are earmarked for 

the state of Alaska, specifically for the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Grant Program 

which was created to offset the impacts of oil and gas development on NPR-A 

villages. Since 1999, over $150 million has been allocated to the North Slope for this 

purpose. In addition to taxes and royalties, our support for the North Slope Borough 

and Nuiqsut residents includes programs addressing education, subsistence, emergency response, community events, workforce development and employment. The 

programs we have implemented, funded or otherwise supported are summarized in 

Attachment 2. We believe the relationships we have developed with North Slope 

residents are mutually beneficial and provide the basis for understanding and working together to solve local concerns. 


26388.014.eps
44 

ATTACHMENT 2 


26388.015.eps

eonocJPhmips Alaska 

Natural Gas to Nuiasut 

ConocoPhillips Alaska (COPA) provides up to 1 million cubic feet of natural gas per day to the community at 

no cost from the Alpine facility. 

Gas deliveries started in 2008, after completion of the Nuiqsut Gas Pipeline and the installation of natural 

gas infrastructure in the village. 

99"..4 of Nuiqsut households are now connected to natural gas and Nuiqsut enjoys some of the lowest 

energy bills in the nation ($25/month to Nuiqsut Gas Cooperative for costs associated with local distribution 

system). 

NPR-A Impact Grant Funding 

Over $150 million has been awarded to North Slope villages within the NPR·A since 1999. This funding 

comes from lease sales, rents, bonuses, and royalty payments in the NPR-A. Since 1999, COP has been the 

most active explorer and participant in lease sales. 

Nuiqsut has received NPRA·Agrants for projects such as natural gas piping and building conve sions~ 

graveyard fencing, City Hall renovation, retractable boat ramp as well as for the pending Colville River 

Access Road. These projects are in addition to annual grant funding for city and teen center operations. 

The City of Barrow receives grants to run city operations as well as additional grant funding for the 

expansion for Piuraagvik public recreation center. 

50% of federal royalty from NPRA developments will go to the State to distribute as community grants as 

part of this NPR-A impact grant program. 

Autaatug Fund 

In 2007, COPA and Pioneer entered into an agreement w ith the North Slope Borough to establish and 

manage a fund that provided grants to North Slope e ntities for 'NOrkforce development, subsistence, and 

substance abuse programs. From 2007-2015, the fund awarded just under $2 million to the North Slope 

Borough and its villages. The agreement expired in 2015. 

North Slope Borough Taxes 

In 2015 alone, ConocoPhillips paid $132 million in property taxes to the N58, which is over 

$16,500 per Borough resident. 
45 


26388.016.eps 26388.017.eps

Subsistence Support Programs 

Alasb Eskimo Whaling Commission (AEWC) 

)> COPA provides annual grants to support the AEWC. 

Kuukpikmuit Subsistence Oversight Panel (KSOP) 

)> COPA funds the operations of KSOP, the local subsistence panel in Nuiqsut formed at the startup of 

Alpine. This funding covers the cost associated with administering the panel which consists of 

representatives of the City of Nuiqsu t, the Native Village of Nuiqsut (NVN) and the Kuukpik 

Corporation. 

Road Access 

) Kuukpik shareholders and Nuiqsut residents have the right to use all permanent and temporary roads 

constructed byCOPA on Kuukpik land and any connecting roads. COPA connects the Alpine ice road 

to the village every year. Community benefits from this by having access to the Haul Road every 

winter for trips to Fairbanks/Anchorage as well as facilitating access to hunting areas. 

Subsistence Mitigation Funds 

)> Since 2005, COPA has contributed over $720,000 in subsistence mitiga tion funds to the NSB and the 

City of Nuiqsut. These annual contributions will increase for each Alpine satellite drillsite, including 

GMTl and GMT2. A local Nuiqsut committee determines how the funds are distributed and is 

typically distributed to hunters in t he form of fuel vouchers to offset the fuel costs of subsistence 

hunting as well as distributed to each household to offset costs. 

GMTl Mitigation Funds 

). To off·set identified impacts, including impacts to subsistence uses that cannot be fully avoided by 

project design, COPA volunteered to create an $8 million compensation mitigation fund that will 

provide for the development and implementation of a landscape4 1evel regional mitigation strategy 

(RMS) and to finance mitigation projects as identified by the RMS and Nuiqsut. 

Education and Workforce Development Programs 

llisagvik College 

)> COPA provides annual grant funding t o llisagvik College (Alaska's only tribal college) loca ted in Barrow 

to support scholarships and general operations. In 2014, COP was recognized by the college for making 

$1 million in contributions over the previous 10 years. 

Scholarship Funds 

l> COPA matches all training and scholarships awarded by Kuukpik and has provided over $150,000 in 

scholarships through this program. 

Kuukpik Employment Coordinator 

l> Provide funding for the retention of an Employment Coordinator to admini.ster a Native Employment 

Services Program. 

Career Quest 

). Career Quest is a program designed to expose high school students from the Trapper School in Nuiqsut 

to various careers at Alpine. There are currently two seasons of Career Quest opportunities: summer 

and winter. The summer session has traditionally provided job experience for 20 youth working at t he 

various offices in the village. The winter session allows for students to spend two days/week at Alpine 

for five weeks seeing what it is like to work in a North Slope oil field operation. The Career Quest 

program was initiated in 1999 and since that time, approximately 300 students have participated. 

Internships 

:> ConocoPhillips funds various internships at Alpine for Nuiqsut residents, Kuukpik 

Shareholders/descendants and other North Slope residents. Over 30 interns have participated in the 

program since it started in 2002. 

Subsist ence Rep resentatives/Ice Road Monitors 

~ COPA provides annual employment during ice road season, hiring local residents from Nuiqsut to be 

subsistence representatives. Typically four to eight positions are filled depending on level of activity. 

CDS Construction Employment Numbers 

} Over 30 individuals were hired during the past two winters as part of CDS construction. By utilizing the 

Kuukpik Hotel to house a portion of the crews, COS also created many indirect employment 

opportunities at the Kuukpik Hotel as well as bed tax revenue for t he City of Nuiqsut. 
46 

State and National Job Creation and Economic Stimulation 

From a socioeconomic perspective, our operations have created thousands of jobs 

for Alaskans; and generated a multitude of opportunities for Alaska businesses as 

well as businesses throughout the United States. 

THE CHALLENGING OPERATING ENVIRONMENT

Arctic Conditions 

A common characteristic of NPR-A developments is the extended time between 

discovery and first oil. Some of this is driven by the North Slope’s natural environment, and some by regulatory requirements. 

Exploration and development in the Arctic has unique and special requirements. 

Due to the fragile nature of the tundra, exploratory drilling outside existing infrastructure is conducted in the winter, when the tundra is frozen, using ice roads and 

ice pads. This ice-based infrastructure melts in the summer, leaving no sign it was 

ever there. However, this shortens the exploratory drilling window to about 90 to 

120 days per year. During development, to reduce the surface footprint we drill 

wells from a central gravel pad using extended-reach drilling. These factors increase 

the cost and time required for exploration and development compared to land-based 

operations outside the Arctic. Once we announce our intention to develop a discovery, assuming no unexpected permitting delays and close proximity to existing 

infrastructure, we can move to production in about 6 to 7 years. That time frame 


26388.018.eps
47 

includes 3 to 4 years for complex permitting, and 3 years for engineering and 

construction. 

However, in cases like GMT2 where the discovery is far from existing infrastructure, development timing depends on first building infrastructure out to the discovery area. With our current assumption of first oil for GMT2 in 2021, the elapsed 

time from discovery to production will be 20 years. 

Regulatory Considerations 

From a regulatory point of view, the state of Alaska has implemented relatively 

efficient processes. Our key permitting challenge has been working with the Federal 

Government, whose regulatory framework has been less well defined. 

FEDERAL PERMITTING IN NPR-A

In order for development, conservation, and impact mitigation to proceed in an orderly manner in the NPR-A, agency decisions must be predictable and reasonably 

durable. Predictability is essential for developers, residents, investors, the state of 

Alaska, the North Slope Borough, the Native Corporations, the tribes, villages and 

residents. Since we first entered the NPR-A in 2000, we have seen steadily increasing and evolving permitting requirements from the Federal Government. At this 

time, new NPR-A developments must address 265 best practices and mitigation 

measures (see Attachment 3). 

ATTACHMENT 3 

Expanding Requirements 

The steady expansion of standards and mitigation measures was complicated by 

agencies also revisiting previous work, decisions and compromises. For example, an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was performed in 2004 that explicitly evaluated and approved roads proposed for planned development of CD5, GMT1 and 

GMT2. However, as permitting of these projects proceeded, we faced conducting a 

Supplemental EIS (SEIS) for each, ostensibly because too much had changed in the 

intervening years. This requirement added time to the development schedule, increased costs, and created uncertainty regarding the viability of development. 

Permitting Obstacles 

Another key area of contention has been difficulty in permitting roads. As a company, we will not develop new drill sites and production facilities without connection 

by road to the Alpine infrastructure. We firmly believe that the lack of road access 

poses potential environmental risks, particularly in event of a hydrocarbon spill. It 

also causes an expanded development footprint as more infrastructure is required 

if a drill site cannot be reached by road. This in turn causes greater emissions from 


26388.019.eps
48 

increased infrastructure and air traffic, adverse impacts on subsistence hunting due 

to increased air traffic, increased operational difficulties, and higher costs. Following 

are several examples of difficulties in working with Federal agencies to 

permit NPR-A developments. 

• CD5—The Corps of Engineers initially rejected our application for a ‘‘roaded’’ 

bridge across the Nigliq Channel of the Colville River, which would have effectively prohibited development. After an appeal to the Corps, a permit was 

later granted for a road-bearing bridge. However, the complications over the 

permit added delay to the project. 

• GMT1—This development would not have occurred without construction of 

the CD5 road and bridge. While a roadless option was part of the BLM’s 

Corps of Engineers consideration in the permitting process, ultimately BLM 

and the Corps agreed that a road from CD5 to GMT1 was the preferred option. However, BLM required an $8 million monetary payment to mitigate the 

development impacts. The amount was determined through negotiation, rather than by any specific impacts. Of this payment, $1 million was for BLM’s 

use in developing a Regional Mitigation Strategy (RMS) for the Northeast 

NPR-A, and $7 million was earmarked for the Village of Nuiqsut. This payment was required without consideration of the funding discussed earlier already being directed to offset development impacts and without consideration 

of the positive socioeconomic and subsistence benefits of development for residents of Alaska’s North Slope. The BLM payment contrasts with mitigation 

payments to the Corps of Engineers to offset impacts to wetlands which have 

a measurable basis (e.g., acres of wetlands impacted). 

BLM’s draft RMS was opposed by industry, environmental groups and Native 

groups. A fundamental problem with the Strategy was BLM’s lack of a gap 

analysis to consider all the measures already in place to compensate for and 

minimize impacts (as noted above, NPR-A developments are already subject 

to 265 existing mitigation measures/best practices). BLM is redrafting the 

RMS considering the comments received, and we urge that the final document 

not add unnecessary additional layers of regulation, mitigation, delays and 

costs. 

Another area of contention with BLM was the agency’s excessive time to approve a measurement system, and their adherence to unreasonably rigid 

measurement standards despite having the latitude under governing regulations to take a speedier and more flexible approach. ConocoPhillips engaged 

with BLM on GMT1 measurement issues early in 2013, and we submitted an 

application in December of 2013. We did not get approval until October, 2016. 

A major reason for this nearly 3-year time scale was long periods of no response from BLM. The design ultimately approved by BLM imposed additional costs on the project in excess of $15 million for a production separator 

to separate oil, gas and water at the drill site solely for purposes of Federal 

royalty measurement. After measurement, the fluids will be recombined for 

delivery to a processing facility where they will be separated and measured 

again. This is an expensive solution that marginally improves measurement 

accuracy solely to measure the Federal share of production, which is estimated to be between only 2 to 21⁄2 percent of total production from the drill 

site. This approach was not supported by other royalty or working interest 

owners, nor was it required by state regulators. 

• GMT2—Permitting is proceeding slowly. BLM took 11 months to issue the 

Notice of Intent to Proceed (with GMT1 it took 25 days), which in turn has 

delayed the project by 1 year. We are cooperating closely with BLM to help 

the agency perform the analysis necessary to complete the SEIS to enable an 

investment decision in late 2018. 

Willow 

In recent discussions with BLM, we have been encouraged by their desire to begin 

work on a regional air quality study and an EIS for development of Willow. We hope 

that these studies will be more durable than the 2004 EIS conducted for CD5, 

GMT1 and GMT2. We are also hopeful that BLM will pursue a more balanced approach in assessing oil and gas impacts by considering the positive socioeconomic 

and subsistence benefits of development. Recent policy changes to eliminate the 

BLM mitigation payments will help facilitate development on all Federal lands. 

49 

ACCESS TO FEDERAL NORTH SLOPE LANDS

NPR-A 

We would like to see more Federal lands available for leasing on the North Slope. 

Our current acreage position abuts lands deemed unavailable for leasing by the 

2013 NPR-A Record of Decision. The area unavailable for leasing in the Northeast 

NPR-A area has expanded from approximately 600,000 acres in 1999 to more than 

3.1 million acres today (see Attachment 4). We believe this is more land than needed to protect this important wildlife and subsistence resource. We are not advocating for any changes to the current 265 mitigation measures/best management 

practices mentioned earlier that are already in place and believe that NPR-A development can be done in a safe and environmentally sound manner that benefits all 

stakeholders. We are encouraged by Secretary Zinke’s recent Secretarial Order calling for a review of the 2012 NPR-A IAP through the lens of a better balance between development opportunities and protection of environmentally sensitive areas 

in the Reserve. 

ATTACHMENT 4 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

Regarding the 1002 area in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), we believe that expanded access is generally in the best interests of the state of Alaska 

and our country, and that this area can be developed in a safe and environmentally 

responsible manner. If the 1002 area was authorized for leasing, we would consider 

it against other opportunities in our portfolio, just as we do with exploration opportunities worldwide. That being said, we see tremendous potential in NPR-A and remain focused on our projects and exploration plans in the Reserve. 

CLOSING—RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT PAST, PRESENT AND FUTURE

ConocoPhillips, through its heritage companies ARCO Alaska, PhillipsPetroleum 

and Conoco, has been an active explorer and developer on both Federal and state 

lands in Alaska, both onshore and offshore, from Cook Inlet to the North Slope, for 

over 50 years. We have a track record of environmentally and socially responsible 

operations. Through our investments and those of other oil and gas companies, we 

have generated jobs for Alaskans and created wealth for the state of Alaska; 

Alaskan communities; Native regional and village corporations and their shareholders; and Alaskan and Lower 48 businesses. Our business and socioeconomic 

benefits have been positive game changers to the state. While we continue to explore and develop oil and natural gas resources on Alaska’s state lands, Federal 


26388.020.eps
50 

lands there represent new opportunities for potentially important discoveries. 

However, there is intense competition for investment dollars and Alaska’s high cost 

environment puts it at a cost disadvantage to many other locals. Unnecessary regulatory actions and requirements that add costs and delays could make Alaska noncompetitive. The challenge for BLM is to provide access to Federal lands under 

reasonable, predictable, cost effective and legally defensible permitting. Additional 

oil and gas exploration and development on Alaska Federal lands will help meet the 

goal of American energy dominance and help keep a key piece of U.S. infrastructure, 

the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, economically viable. We are encouraged by recent 

changes in the Federal Government’s philosophy surrounding the management of 

Federal lands, especially in Alaska, and believe that these changes will help meet 

the energy goals of the United States and provide economic benefits to Alaskans and 

the country as a whole. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. GOSAR TO J. SCOTT JEPSEN, VICE

PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL AFFAIRS & TRANSPORTATION, CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA

Question 1. In the event that the TAPS pipeline is not transporting any oil, would 

the pipeline right-of-way be revoked? Are there any requirements mandating that the 

pipeline be dismantled within a certain time frame if the TAPS pipeline is not 

transporting a certain amount of oil? 

Answer. The term of the Federal Agreement and Grant of Right-of-Way is not 

strictly tied to the transportation of oil. However, following any continuous 2-year 

period where there is a deliberate failure of the permittees to use the right-of-way 

for the purpose for which it was granted (construction, operation, and maintenance 

of a 48-inch pipeline), the Secretary of the Interior may initiate proceedings to 

terminate the Right-of-Way. 

With respect to dismantlement, the Federal Agreement and Grant of Right-of-Way 

states that, upon completion of the use of all, or a very substantial part, of the 

Right-of-Way or other portion of the Pipeline System the permittees shall promptly 

remove all improvements and equipment, except as otherwise approved in writing 

by the Authorized Officer (designated by the Secretary of the Interior), and shall 

restore the land to a condition that is satisfactory to the Authorized Officer or at 

the option of Permittees pay the cost of such removal and restoration. 

Question 2. Are there any environmental requirements, such as studies or reviews, 

you are required to conduct for the state that is also required for the Federal process? 

If so, are you able to save time by not having to duplicate your efforts? 

Answer. To date, duplicative environmental studies or reviews between the state 

and Federal Government have not been an issue. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. And thank you all for staying within the 

5-minute limit. We will see if members of this Committee can do 

so as well. 

We will now turn to questioning. Under Rule 3(d) we impose a 

5-minute limit on the amount of questions, as well as the answers. 

So, if I cut you off in the middle of an answer, it is only because 

the Member asked you the question too late in their 5 minutes. I 

apologize for that in advance. 

Mr. Wittman, do you want to go through the gauntlet first? 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be honored to 

do that. Thank you again to our panel members for coming in and 

giving us your testimony today. 

Mr. Glenn, I want to start with you. You very eloquently explained how current oil and gas exploration in the industry on the 

North Slope helps to support local communities there, specifically 

our Alaska Native communities, the things that they deal with. 

The revenues that come from the oil and gas production there 

comes in the form of revenues back to local communities. 

51 

You talked about how those revenues are used for a variety of 

projects, not only operational costs to sustain those communities, 

but also construction of important infrastructure in those areas. 

Can you elaborate a little bit more about the revenue that comes 

in, how it is used, and how critical it has been since its inception 

to the communities there on the North Slope now? 

Mr. GLENN. Sure, thank you. The quality of life changes just in 

a short span of time over the last generation and two generations 

have been startling. If you go back to the time when my parents 

and their parents grew up on the North Slope, victims of house 

fires were common, whole families perishing just because snow 

drifts cross a road and there is no way to bring fire protection resources to a house fire. Or there is no fire protection at all. 

The health issues, safety issues that are part of a fabric of a 

modernizing community just did not exist. And the only way they 

exist now is because of this stable tax base that has introduced 

itself to our region. There is no economy except for that. 

So, with the presence of industry in our region, we created a very 

strong home rule government to attack, first, these real, startling 

life, health, and safety issues. And beginning with things like 

health clinics and fire halls, but extending all the way—you know, 

it is almost like rocket science when you have to build responsible 

water and sewer facilities in our communities. 

So, the notion of a quaint, Alaska Native village belies the infrastructure costs that are mandated to keep us there. Everybody 

wants the environment to support us for our culture and our food, 

but we need to have a home to come home to. And that is provided 

by the presence of industry in our region. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Sure. Give me your perspective, too. You talked 

about where the oil and gas industry, through its activities and 

revenues, have brought your community. Tell me what would happen if those revenues were to disappear, let’s say, over the next 10 

years. Give me your perspective there on what might happen. 

Mr. GLENN. There is an expectation that we have built with this 

great change in quality of life. It has to continue; who is going to 

build the schools for our grandchildren? That whole lookingforward attitude. And the only way we can do that until something 

else takes its place is the stable presence of industry. In this case, 

it is the oil and gas industry in our region. 

So, as we look forward, we know that someday there will be 

something else. But the whole world knows that someday there will 

be something else. Until that day comes, we have to husband this 

industry in our region, and treat it with the care it needs to be 

sustainable. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Do you believe the industry, too, acts and performs as a good neighbor in your region, and does the things necessary to protect communities, but also the natural resources that 

make that region special? 

Mr. GLENN. I think the answer is overwhelmingly yes. The 

strong controls and safeguards that are on the development of 

Arctic resources are sometimes there with our people at the table, 

and the presence of local permitting authorities and public comment that exists and comes from our communities. Industry 

52 

behaves in our region, in large part, because we are there to help 

make sure that that happens. And they have stood the test of time. 

So, if you leave the pad of development on any of these North 

Slope facilities, there is no halo of dirty environment. It is clean, 

right when you step off the gravel pad. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Very good. Thank you so much, Mr. Glenn. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I am going to abide by your 30-second rule 

and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. BISHOP. Ah, you are a gentleman, what can I say? 

Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Pourchot, in part thanks to the fact that the NPR-A has 

‘‘petroleum reserve’’ in the name, some people think the entire area 

was basically designed to be developed for oil to the maximum extent possible. But didn’t Congress recognize that this was not the 

case, and there were also areas within the NPR-A that deserve 

protection? 

Mr. POURCHOT. Ranking Member Lowenthal, yes. The Naval 

Petroleum Production Act of 1976 that transferred management 

from the Navy to BLM did provide for oil and gas leasing in the 

Reserve. It also very specifically provided for protections for a number of surface resources, including fish and wildlife, environmental 

subsistence, historic and scenic resources. 

It also authorized the Secretary to designate special areas that 

had these values, and to protect those designations during oil exploration in the Reserve. Actually, in 1976, the Secretary at the 

time did designate both Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River 

Uplands and the Colville River area as special areas. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. It seems clear, then, that Congress recognized 

that the government had a responsibility to treat the NPR-A in a 

similar manner to other public lands, balancing energy 

development along with conservation and protection. And it was 

not simply an underground gas tank to be developed at all costs. 

That is really what I was saying. There was this balancing act. 

I also want to know, Mr. Pourchot, that the Obama administration approved the Greater Moose’s Tooth Unit 1 development in 

2015, which was the first development approved after the finalization of the AIP in 2013, which you mentioned. In applying for the 

project, ConocoPhillips requested a waiver of one of the provisions 

of the AIP that would have protected an important subsistence use 

area for the community of Nuiqsut. 

The permit granted that waiver. But in doing so, there was an 

acknowledgment by the BLM that there would be significant subsistence, socio-cultural, and other impacts that led ConocoPhillips 

to volunteer additional mitigation funding, and it caused the BLM 

to direct the preparation of a regional mitigation strategy to address the foreseeable impacts from oil and gas development. 

Can you speak to the importance of mitigation measures in 

addressing the potential impacts of oil and gas development in the 

Reserve? 

Mr. POURCHOT. Yes, sir. Mitigation is very much a part of the 

IAP, in terms of its stipulations, its monitoring requirements, and 

best practices. And many of the impacts that were identified in the 

53 

EIS and the planning process were subject to those kinds of 

mitigations. 

But I think what BLM found was that, in some cases in the reference you mentioned, there were impacts that could not be fully 

mitigated, and that there were also perhaps cumulative impacts of 

successive developments that occur. And I think they were viewing 

the mitigation you speak of as trying to address in other ways, or 

to compensate for unavoidable impacts, or cumulative impacts. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Jepsen, do you know what the total 

footprint, including roads and drill pads, for the CD-5 and the 

GMT-1 and the proposal for GMT-2 is? 

Mr. JEPSEN. It is approximately 185 acres. We are about .0008 

percent of the area of NPR-A. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes, we looked it up. We came up with a little 

different, but almost the same, 196 acres. Do you know the total 

length of the roads that run to these projects? 

Mr. JEPSEN. They are approximately about 16 miles from CD-5 

over to GMT-2, when GMT-2 is built. As I recall, it is approximately 8 miles from the spine road over in Alpine over to CD-5— 

not that entire length of road is within the NPR-A. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Chair, I have a few more questions, so I 

will wait. I will yield back now. 

Dr. GOSAR [presiding]. I thank the gentleman and I now recognize the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Lamborn, for his 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 

having this hearing. And I will just jump right in; I have a lot of 

questions. 

Mr. Jepsen, I understand that TAPS is currently running at 25 

percent capacity, representing an almost dangerously low level of 

throughput. Alyeska Pipeline Service Company has had to go to 

great lengths to keep the pipeline running, and has even decreased 

the number of pumping stations from 11 down to 4. How would increasing production improve TAPS operations and provide more 

stability for the oil and gas industry? 

Mr. JEPSEN. If we had more throughput in TAPS, obviously it is 

going to take away some of the concerns that we have right now 

about low flow. We start getting it down much below 500,000 barrels a day, we enter a region which we call the low-flow region. 

And the problem we have there is we have long periods of cold 

weather, and the pipeline is not flowing, you might have issues 

with wax deposition and potentially restarting the pipeline. 

Alyeska has done a very good job of working through that. 

Currently, we are looking at about 300,000 barrels a day as being 

kind of that limit. We are going to have to start doing something 

significantly different. 

If you have more oil flowing down the pipeline, obviously operations become easier, the costs to operate on a per-barrel basis go 

down. And because the royalties and severance tax that we pay— 

and royalties for both Federal and state purposes are based upon 

the net-back price up to the North Slope—if we reduce the cost of 

shipping the oil through the pipeline, it means more revenues for 

the state, more revenues for the Federal Government. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Now, it appears that CD-5, GMT1, and GMT-2, which Representative Lowenthal just referred to as 

54 

well, are each roughly $1 billion projects, and they will each ultimately produce somewhere around 20,000–30,000 barrels of oil per 

day, helping to fill up TAPS. What is the potential for capital 

spending, jobs, and oil production with your company’s Willow discovery in NPR-A announced earlier this year? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Willow is a much larger discovery than GMT-1, CD5, or GMT-2. Willow has potentially as much as 300 million barrels recoverable—not oil in place, but recoverable reserves. We are 

looking right now at potentially building a new stand-alone facility 

in order to accommodate the production that we see possible at 

Willow. 

That will be a multi-billion-dollar facility, requiring thousands of 

people at peak construction to construct it. It will generate not only 

opportunities for businesses in Alaska, but also the Lower 48—not 

everything that we require for these large projects can be manufactured or built in Alaska—and we will probably have several hundred permanent jobs if we go down that path. 

Right now we are still in the evaluation phase, and we are 

beginning the permitting process for Willow. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Dixon, I have a question for you. What do energy jobs mean, 

personally, to each of your rank and file members of your labor 

union? 

Mr. DIXON. Well, starting with the workers on the North Slope, 

we have contracts with contractors that get the bids for some of 

these jobs with ConocoPhillips, BP, and Exxon. It means goodpaying jobs for the ones on the North Slope. We have negotiated 

hourly rates going into healthcare plans, and also hourly rates 

going into pension plans, and training money going in hourly, too, 

so that if people wanted to upgrade their skills they could come in 

and train and get that to further their career. 

We also have two apprenticeship programs. One is the construction driver program and one is the surveyor program. These individuals roughly go through 8–10 weeks of classroom time and 

hands-on training. We have buy-in through the companies that we 

work for that give them the opportunity to go to work. 

There is a difference between somebody going to school and then 

looking for a job than somebody that is getting trained, going to 

school, and going right to work, a big difference. And we provide 

that for our apprentices, through our contractors, and through the 

work that we are talking about now, like GMT-1. 

It is very big for our workforce, not only just on the North Slope, 

but the trickle-down effect to all these other industries that we 

represent—it touches them, too. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And for the working people in the union, how do 

these energy jobs compare to other jobs available in Alaska? 

Mr. DIXON. It depends. The North Slope workers that do the 

pipeline and the civil work are reliant pretty heavily on new discoveries, new work up there to keep going, making a living for 

their family. That is why we want to see things keep going and 

developing. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

55 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. We now recognize the gentlewoman from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Our Nation’s public 

lands protect some of the natural and historic places that have 

shaped and defined who we are as a people and a country, and 

would not have been protected without support from the Federal 

Government. 

Though state lands are often managed to maximize profitability, 

public lands are managed by the Federal Government for a wide 

range of activities and on behalf of all Americans. Those activities 

include recreation and sportsmen’s activities, energy development, 

protecting open spaces that provide wildlife habitat, clean water, 

and clean air, and what we call a multiple-use mandate. 

As stewards of these lands, we must work to find a balance between compelling at sometimes competing interests, and make sure 

that the Federal Government is a good neighbor to local communities. There are some places in our country where the highest, 

best use of public lands is conservation and recreation. And one of 

those places is the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Arctic Refuge is one of our Nation’s crown jewels, and it deserves to be protected for generations to come. As the Ranking 

Member referenced, the area is home to caribou herds, polar bears, 

gray wolves, and numerous other nationally significant animal and 

plant species unique to the region. It also supports subsistence activities for Native Alaska communities, and is open to recreation 

such as hunting, hiking, fishing, and wildlife viewing. 

I am strongly opposed to any attempts by the Administration or 

this Congress to open up this national wildlife refuge to drilling, 

which would permanently degrade this natural wonder, and could 

jeopardize Alaska’s $9.5 billion outdoor recreation economy. I am 

sorry that we don’t have representatives from it here today to talk 

about the ways in which they contribute to the economy. 

Mr. Pourchot, in 2015, the Fish and Wildlife Service completed 

its revision of the comprehensive conservation plan for the entire 

Arctic region known as the CCP. The CCP, and then subsequently 

President Obama, recommended that Congress designate the 

Coastal Plain and other areas in the Refuge as wilderness, our 

Nation’s highest level of federally protected land. 

Can you describe more the values on the Coastal Plain that 

Interior looked at in developing the CCP? Did the Administration 

focus on long-term or short-term benefits to the American people? 

Mr. POURCHOT. Congresswoman Tsongas, thank you very much 

for the question. You mentioned a number of the values that CCP 

looked at and found for the Arctic Refuge. 

I would add to that that the Coastal Plain is a very integral part 

of a much larger ecosystem, stretching from the south side of the 

Brooks Range and way to the east and protected areas and adjacent areas in Canada, and that the Coastal Plain here is very narrow, much narrower than further west. And, in a way, some of the 

wildlife and the values get condensed and become very much an integral part of upper watersheds in that area. 

It is well known that one of the main calving areas of the 

porcupine caribou herd, which now numbers almost 200,000 

56 

animals and is shared with Canada in its habitat, calve on the 

Coastal Plain there, in the Arctic Refuge. 

Other things that have changed a little bit, it has become a more 

important denning area, onshore denning area, for threatened 

polar bear, as sea ice melts and thins in the Beaufort Sea. It is also 

a designated important bird area for waterfowl and shorebirds 

across the entire Coastal Plain there. The caribou, I should mention, are very, very important to the subsistence and culture of the 

Gwich’in people that are resident on the south side of the Brooks 

Range. 

Ms. TSONGAS. This recommendation to designate the Coastal 

Plain as a wilderness is in stark contrast to the 1987 Department 

of the Interior study that recommended fossil fuel development on 

the Plain. So, what have we learned in the past 30 years that confirms that this area is too special for drilling? 

Mr. POURCHOT. Of course, one might argue that there was a mistake made 30 years ago in the recommendation. But I think that 

we have seen worldwide, as well as in Alaska, in continued development, continued search for natural resources in the Arctic circumpolar, and that fewer and fewer non-developed areas remain, 

and particularly ones like the Arctic Refuge that has been a refuge 

since 1960 and was designated largely wilderness in the 1980 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. So, I think the 

prominence or the uniqueness of the Refuge has taken on even 

more significance in the last 30 years. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, I yield back. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentlewoman. The gentleman from Utah, 

the Chairman for the Full Committee, Mr. Bishop, is recognized. 

Mr. BISHOP. Yes, let me apologize to the Committee and the witnesses first, because I am going to have to leave to go to a 3:30 

meeting that I have. So, I am going to ask the questions and then 

just head out, but I do appreciate you all being here. 

I recognize that mistakes have been made. We will determine 

which were the mistakes and which were the proper decisions in 

history. 

In 2013, when the integrated activity plan was put into place, I 

think it was mentioned by Mr. Lowenthal, that about 11 million 

acres were unavailable for oil and gas leasing. So, let me ask all 

of you a couple of questions. 

Mr. Glenn, in your testimony, and also in some of the answers 

here, you talked about how Federal policies that closed lands 

around Native communities have a detrimental effect on indigenous people. Can you just explain a little bit more in detail about 

the conservation withdrawals, how their restrictions impact Native 

communities? 

Mr. GLENN. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. It is our 

experience that conservation withdrawals, no matter how well intended, often have consequences that were unpredicted, yielding 

areas off limits for any purposes, even those beyond which maybe 

the conservation area was designed to protect itself against. 

So, what happens in our region, you start to get a multiple overlapping of conservation or other related withdrawals that paint us 

into a corner in our own region. And the presence of the resource 

limits itself. Oil and gas is not continuous everywhere underneath 

57 

in either the ANWR or the National Petroleum Reserve, but it is 

where it is. 

So, our approach, instead of painting ourselves off limits of the 

entire region, is to allow exploration to continue, and then make responsible decisions about how that development should take place. 

That gets thwarted when carte blanche, right before everything 

else, you start to just section off whole areas of the region as off 

limits. That is the first problem. 

The second problem is, even in areas where development has 

been allowed, sometimes the delay introduced by—I won’t say even 

permitting stipulations, I will just say by an approach that is intended to delay development of a reasonable project and responsible project has strong implications for the economics of the 

region. 

The short way to think about it is production delayed is production denied. I mean the real effect is felt in the bottom lines of the 

Native corporations, and the dividends that we distribute to all of 

the Native people, all throughout the state. 

Mr. BISHOP. You have a unique perspective as part of the Arctic 

Slope Regional Corporation. Does the Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation support Secretary Zinke’s decision to reassess the integrated activity plan? 

Mr. GLENN. Yes, we strongly support it. 

Mr. BISHOP. So, what consideration should the Department take 

as it makes this reassessment? What elements should be part of 

that? 

Mr. GLENN. The three areas that I think should be looked at are, 

as Mr. Jepsen talked about, first is the pace of environmental review, the pace of administrative processing through which any 

application goes through inside the BLM. When it takes 18–24 

months to develop what is a pretty low—reasonably like a step-out 

project of a much larger project, you start to question what is the 

cause for the pace. So, one is the pace of administrative reviews. 

Second one would be take a look at what is being mandated for 

mitigation, and question whether or not you are getting multiple 

bites at the apple when you are forcing an industry to overmitigate itself when there is a bunch of voluntary mitigation going 

in. 

And finally, we have a long history of oil and gas exploration, beginning with the Navy in the 1940s. And the practices there, they 

learned as they went. And you can still see the scars on our land 

from the Navy exploration efforts in the 1940s. They learned a lot 

about how to operate, but as they learned on the fly, there were 

some environmental effects. We should not burden today’s responsible operators to atone for the mistakes that were made during 

the exploration days in the 1940s. The mitigation should be balanced to the development that is at hand, rather than for the ones 

in the past. 

Mr. BISHOP. I appreciate that. I just wish the concerns you are 

mentioning were unique to Alaska. Unfortunately, we find them in 

other parts of the Nation at the same time. 

Mr. Jepsen, I only have a few minutes, but I appreciate the fact 

that you gave us four specifics that we can work on in your oral 

58 

testimony. That is extremely helpful. I am assuming those were not 

put in some kind of priority basis. 

And Mr. Dixon, thank you for being here and speaking out for 

the people who do the work, who are on the ground. Your testimony gave a sense of reality to the situation that is oftentimes confused as we pontificate in these levels, and brings some of the 

perspective that is useful. 

And with my thanks for all of you for being here, very much, this 

is an important hearing, it is an important topic—Mr. Chairman, 

I apologize for leaving. That is something I hate to do, but I have 

to go. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, I appreciate the Chairman for indulging. With 

that, I recognize the gentleman from northern Virginia, Mr. Beyer, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank 

you all for coming so far to talk with us about this. 

Mr. Dixon, in your testimony, you talked really eloquently about 

the overall impact the oil industry has for the people of Alaska, and 

basically made the case that this is sort of sine qua non for the 

folks there. 

But I noticed also Mr. Glenn’s testimony says the original 

Prudhoe Bay oil field was estimated to contain about 9.6 billion 

barrels of recoverable oil, and has already pumped 17 billion—so 

almost double. 

Mr. Dixon, you talked about oil prices being around $25 a barrel 

right now. So, help me understand why the thing has fallen from 

2 million to 500,000. Is it the fact that oil is only $25, rather than 

$40 or $100? Is it that the supply is not there? Why has it fallen 

by 75 percent, leading to all the problems about the viability of the 

pipeline in the years to come? 

Mr. DIXON. The reason why it has fallen is it is an aging field. 

The Prudhoe Bay and Kaparak fields have been around, developing 

for 30-plus years. The oil that is coming through there now is 

thicker. We are having temperature changes because of underground, where it is, and it is colder, and that is where the flow is. 

The amount of oil is not there as much as it used to be. 

Mr. BEYER. That is very helpful. So, you are looking at ANWR, 

with 7.7 billion. If you went through almost 18 billion in the last 

30 years, ANWR is 10 years to empty that? 

Mr. DIXON. I would not speculate on what the time frame would 

be. 

Mr. BEYER. Yes, well, it is similar. In Mr. Glenn’s testimony, too, 

you talk once again, very nicely, about how our people depend on 

a healthy Arctic environment to support subsistence species, but 

also depend on a healthy energy industry, and that these dependencies appear to be in conflict, but many on the North Slope view 

this a totally appropriate one. 

Mr. Pourchot, Mr. Glenn talks about how many in Congress are 

under the misguided notion that onshore Arctic development somehow harms the fish, wildlife, and waterfowl resources there. Why 

is that a misguided notion? Or is that actually a guided notion? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. POURCHOT. I think it is mixed, and I think people show lots 

of photographs of caribou in and around the pipeline and 

59 

anecdotally say there is not much impact on wildlife from 

development. 

I think there, at the same time, are some very good studies that 

show specific impacts with specific populations. Not all species 

react the same to development. But I think, in the case of the 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and its resources, I think I 

would give you three examples where there are good data showing 

adverse impacts on calving: caribou, for one; molting geese, for two; 

and a very specific species, yellow-billed loons, which has been an 

endangered species candidate, their nesting is very susceptible to 

disturbance. 

So, I think you have to look, species by species, but there are certainly research and studies showing adverse impacts on wildlife 

from development. 

Mr. BEYER. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Jepsen, in your ConocoPhillips you talk about how, in wildlife protection, that you monitor the distribution of the Arctic 

herds, that you do surveys on aircraft on the polar bear den detections. Is there anything you do besides study? Is there any constructive things that ConocoPhillips is doing to protect these 

species, besides monitoring and surveying? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Probably the biggest thing that we do to minimize 

our impacts is we avoid areas where we have concentrations of 

wildlife, where our activities might bother them. So, for example, 

the polar bear. A very healthy population of polar bears on the 

North Slope. However, if we have a den, and we find out where the 

dens are, we route our operations around them so we do not disturb the polar bear. 

Same thing with some of the nesting sites that Mr. Pourchot 

mentioned. We locate those nesting sites and we make sure that 

our operations do not impact those nesting sites. 

So, it is back to, really, a lot what Mr. Glenn said, which is there 

is some tension here, obviously. It is a sensitive environment up 

there. We all recognize it. We all try to do the things that we can 

do to minimize our impacts. Some of it is avoidance. In fact, much 

of it is avoidance right now, to try to do the things to minimize industry’s impact on the wildlife, on subsistence, and on the resource 

on the North Slope. 

Mr. BEYER. Great. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Alaska, 

Mr. Young, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing. 

Most of the questions have been asked. 

Mr. Jepsen, talking about the draft regional mitigation strategy 

at NPR-A—stay away from ANWR a moment—the BLM issued in 

late 2016, you referred to a fundamental problem with the strategy 

being BLM’s lack of gap analysis to consider all the measures already in place to compensate for far and minimized impacts. What 

does that mean? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Congressman Young, what we are specifically referring to there is that when that draft RMS came out, it made the 

assumption that everything we were going to do is have major 

socio-economic, environmental justice, and subsistence impacts. 

60 

We actually take exception to that, and we wrote a fairly lengthy 

comment on that back to the BLM. In fact, the city of Nuiqsut and 

Kuukpik Corporation, the Native village corporation for the Village 

of Kuukpik, took a pretty significant exception to the BLM’s characterization of the impact of GMT-1 in those areas. 

In this regional mitigation strategy, the BLM was setting up a 

higher key of impacts and setting up a cost schedule where, if a 

developer wanted to go out and pursue a project, they were going 

to have to pay a certain amount of money, or make contributions 

to certain sorts of infrastructure in the Village of Nuiqsut or potentially elsewhere, to offset these ‘‘impacts.’’ 

Mr. YOUNG. And there is no law about that. That was done by 

the BLM? 

Mr. JEPSEN. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. YOUNG. See, Mr. Chairman, I am bringing this up, it was 

extortion. Extortion. The agency itself said that they had to pay a 

fee to get their permits. 

And Mr. Glenn, you are looking at that phone of yours, and I am 

going to take it away if you keep it up. Right now. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. I am pleased to see both you and Pat being there. 

The reflection off both of your heads is marvelous. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. So, I am just saying, with all due respect, people of 

the Slope support this development. And I challenge you, Mr. Pat, 

on the studies you said were made, I want to see them and who 

wrote them. I think that is crucially important. Because when you 

say it is affecting the wildlife and affects the fish and game, has 

impacted upon them, I think it is pure nonsense. Now, you may 

disagree with me, but I think it is nonsense. 

But when you make that statement, I want those studies in front 

of us to find out who made them, who paid for them, and how they 

were done. Because I know I have been up there a lot. I see more 

caribou now than I have ever seen. That has been a myth the 

whole time. 

And, as long as Mr. Glenn, and Tara in back of you, work together with the companies that will do this exploration work, the 

village that lives there—we give them 92,000 acres of land, and 

they are precluded from drilling on it if they wish to do so—I think 

it is time for us to start listening to people that live there and work 

there. 

If they think it doesn’t hurt the subsistence, then that is who we 

should listen to, not somebody out of San Francisco or somebody 

from one of these organizations that their whole career is to stop 

all types of development that help the individuals that live in that 

area. It is wrong. And we sit here and listen to this, very frankly, 

Sierra Club—I could go on for a long time—everything else, Save 

Alaska, the administrations we cannot move on things. 

There is another issue that they want to do, and that is have no 

development. And we can use it together, we can have our subsistence and we can have economy as the North Slope has done to educate their kids and provide them—I call it a better way of living, 

because that is what they want. 

61 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for these hearings. And again, I talk 

to my good friend, Mr. Gary. Thank you for the Teamsters. I really 

think we have a responsibility to generate economy in the state of 

Alaska, and as we did in the pipeline. Very good years. And it is 

a marvelous construction job, that pipeline. For those that have not 

seen it or studied the history of it, you should do that. Forty years, 

17 billion barrels of oil through that pipeline. The major spills were 

minor, some spills were mostly man-made. 

One little short story, I had a gentleman that blew the pipeline, 

or tried to do so. He was in my office the day before and I threw 

him out, so he decided to blow up the pipeline. But if you guys 

knew he was going to do that, I wouldn’t have thrown him out. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. YOUNG. But anyway, this issue is development, resources, 

subsistence, gaming, wildlife. It is all compatible. Look at the geese 

out here that fly around and land down here at the monument 

every morning. Very compatible. Play golf. Step in it once in a 

while. You will understand it more. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. The gentleman from Florida, 

Mr. Soto, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that there was a 

lot of work put into the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska plan, 

and it recognized a great balance between making sure that these 

resources are available and protecting our wildlife. It looks like 

about 52 percent of the National Petroleum Reserve is open for 

leasing, about 11.8 million acres—a firm estimate is 72 percent of 

the oil is estimated to be there, about 549 million barrels. 

I guess my first question is to Mr. Pourchot. How much of that 

land is actually leased already? 

Mr. POURCHOT. Congressman, I am sorry, that were active 

development within—— 

Mr. SOTO. Yes, of the over 11.8 million acres that are available 

already, I am trying to determine how much of that is leased already before we look at other areas. 

Mr. POURCHOT. Lease sales have been held fairly regular since 

1999, including annually since 2011. There has probably been 46 

million acres or so offered. Most years, only a fraction of that actually receives bids and is leased on. I think probably 5.6 million 

acres have been leased. 

Interestingly enough, a lot of that over the same period, leases 

have actually been relinquished or have expired. 

Mr. SOTO. So, we basically have half of it that has been offered 

to lease already, but the other half still has not been leased yet. 

And it looks like there is 48 percent of the Reserve that remains 

protected, which is about 11 million acres. Seven million are in the 

Utukok River Uplands Special Area, and the USGS has already 

stated that there is not much oil in that area. And I believe that 

was in your report, too, Mr. Pourchot. 

Then there is another 3.1 million acres that are in the 

Teshekpuk Lake area, which I believe you have already stated is 

key for caribou, waterfowl, polar bears, and others. What would be 

the repercussions if we allowed drilling in that lake area, Mr. 

Pourchot, on that wildlife? 

62 

Mr. POURCHOT. Well, I think the Teshekpuk Lake area, particularly the area that is closed to oil and gas leasing, is probably the 

most biologically productive and important area in the NPR-A. The 

special area incorporates most of the important calving area of the 

herd, insect relief area, and key migration routes of it. 

It also has a very key area for molting geese, about 100,000 

geese are there every year, molting, including probably 30 percent 

of the West Coast brant. 

Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Pourchot. 

And Mr. Glenn, Mr. Jepsen, is this all about drilling in the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, or is that what this is about, at the end 

of the day? 

Mr. JEPSEN. This is Scott Jepsen. We are supportive of the efforts by Congressman Young and the rest of the delegation to open 

the 1002 area, but that is not where our focus is right now. Our 

focus is on NPR-A, not ANWR. 

Mr. SOTO. Would you say that is about right, Mr. Glenn, too, that 

you all are not looking to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge just yet? 

Mr. GLENN. I would say differently. Thank you for the question, 

Congressman. It is not all about ANWR and it is not not all about 

ANWR. But while we are thinking about it, if you are going to look 

at the National Petroleum Reserve and consider multiple uses—for 

example, it is not just a ‘‘gas tank,’’ but also hosts valuable 

habitat—then why don’t we consider the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge in the same light? 

That is, it is not just a wildlife refuge that should remain off 

limits, but also can host important exploration of the Native-owned 

lands that exist there that have been slated for exploration and 

development. Thank you. 

Mr. SOTO. Well, that is reassuring, at least, to hear from you, 

Mr. Jepsen, that we are looking more at the other areas, and not 

at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a place that, much like in 

the Everglades, where I have opposed oil drilling getting near to 

the water there in our own home state, someplace that is not just 

any one state’s land, but a national treasure that we all look to. 

So, these are things we need to keep in mind as some on the 

Committee are looking to open up lands, that that is not the focus, 

at least, for right now. And that is of reassurance as we look to 

these other areas. 

I yield back. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman from Florida. The gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I appreciate the 

witnesses being here. 

The mention of comparison between the Everglades and Alaska, 

it is something that has mystified me, as we went through the 

1970s, and I am not sure how long it went into the 1980s, but that 

there was absolutely no question we were experiencing something 

called global cooling. And I think it was on the cover of some 

magazines. 

But that just did not make sense to me. I didn’t see the world 

ending with global cooling. Oh, well, it is probably 1,000 years out 

or so, but we are at the beginning stage. And then it was global 

63 

warming. And then, when global warming turned out to maybe not 

be as accurate as people thought, went to climate change. So, no 

matter what happened, you could say, ‘‘See there? Climate change.’’ 

But when the planet cools, food production goes down. That is 

what made it so scary in the 1970s. If the planet cooled, then we 

would not be producing food at the same levels, massive starvation. 

Whereas, there are studies that indicate if the planet continues to 

warm, if it did more than warm for a 30-, 40-year cycle, then one 

of the outcomes would be additional food production. 

Mr. Jepsen, I just want to make that distinction. In the Florida 

Everglades, you have an incredible array of living organisms. In 

Alaska, especially the 1002—that, by the way, was set aside by a 

very, very, very liberal Congress, Democrats in Majority in the 

House and Senate, and a President that went by the name Jimmy, 

Jimmy Carter—and they set that aside because that appeared to 

be an area where nobody would go about complaining that there 

was going to be a problem. 

But now, Mr. Jepsen, could you tell us the difference between the 

Alaska State environmental regulations process and the Federal, 

just a brief thumbnail? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Congressman, I will give you a very high-level 

perspective on it. 

When it comes to dealing with the Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, we 

are dealing with a regulatory framework that is fairly stable, it is 

predictable, it does not change very much. We understand how long 

the processes will take, we understand what is required to get the 

permit. 

When it comes to dealing with the Federal Government, particularly the BLM, that has not been the case. As we have tried to proceed with some of these projects that I have described earlier, the 

process changes, the goal posts move, the costs are not predictable, 

the timing is not certain. It is pretty much night and day between 

dealing with the two agencies, between the two regimes, state 

versus Federal, in Alaska. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, maybe you need to take a hint from British 

Petroleum, and get people in like they did in the Clinton administration to put some language in to make some billions, and then 

get them out, back in British Petroleum during the Bush years, 

and then back in the Obama years to help make them more money. 

See, you all apparently are not sending your employees in to work 

for the government to help you out like others have. 

But Mr. Dixon, at its peak, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system 

transmitted 2.1 million barrels a day. And I know there has been 

discussion about that. But what are the potential economic impacts 

of decreased transmission, even beyond where we are now? 

Mr. DIXON. I am not understanding what your—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. We have decreased it down, we are not at 2.1 

million barrels a day, as I understand. What are the consequences 

if we continue to decrease that production? 

Mr. DIXON. I am sure Mr. Jepsen knows more than I do about 

that, but the threshold of 300,000, I believe, is the amount that 

would start getting into the kind of scary part of that pipeline. 

With all the stuff we have talked about with the temperature—— 

64 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, being cooler, that slows it down, and what 

not—— 

Mr. DIXON. Cooler, yes, so it is hard to get that oil to travel down 

the pipeline. And that is why Alyeska Pipeline Service Company— 

I believe it is somewhere around pump 5 or pump 7 has that looping system that they have done to reheat that oil so it will flow 

better. 

But it is a big problem for them. The more oil development, the 

more oil we can put through that pipeline, the better it is going to 

be. It is going to be warmer and help mitigate that, help with that 

problem. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one more question? 

Dr. GOSAR. I will let you have a little bit of my time. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. The gentleman from Georgia, 

Mr. Hice, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we have been 

around the horn, probably, with all the questions. This may have 

been asked; if it has, please forgive me. 

I am impressed with the technology, the innovations that have 

come forth in the last several decades, both to increase our production and, at the same time, keeping an environmentally friendly 

footprint. Mr. Jepsen, I just want to ask you how that drilling technology has changed since oil and gas operations first started in the 

1960s, 1970s, back in there. What kind of innovative technology 

changes have occurred? 

Mr. JEPSEN. The change in technology has been rather dramatic. 

When we first started developing Prudhoe Bay, we were drilling it 

off of 65-acre pads, and we could maybe develop 3–4 square miles 

off of an individual pad. At Alpine, right now, we have about a 12- 

acre pad, and we can develop about 55 square miles. 

We have recently contracted for what we call an extended-reach 

drilling rig. With that drilling rig, we will be able to develop as 

much as 125 square miles from this same drill site. 

And what is really kind of mind-boggling about all that is that 

we can drill this well, drill it 30,000 feet out, away from the existing drill site. We can put it in the zone about 7,000 feet down, and 

then we can drill it horizontally out for the next 23,000 feet, and 

keep it in a box that is about 10 feet square, and keep it in that 

box that entire distance. That was not possible 30, 40 years ago. 

That is one of the differences, really, right now, in terms of what 

we can do to extract more oil out of some of these reservoirs. It 

gives us the ability to go into reservoirs that probably would not 

have been economic, with the technology that we had 40 years ago. 

Today we can drill with one well what might have taken five or six 

wells with 40-year-old technology that makes these locations, these 

reservoirs that we are developing right now, much more economic. 

We have also done a lot of other things, in terms of logging technology, being able to basically take measurements while we drill. 

We have also developed what we call coil tubing drilling technology. So, rather than using a big, stiff piece of pipe that is this 

big around, we use a piece of tubing that is on a coil like your garden hose, about 3 inches, about this big around. We can go into 

older reservoirs, we can kick off, and we can drill out into zones 

that we find bypassed oil in. It makes a huge difference, in terms 

65 

of what we are doing right now to increase recovery in existing 

fields like Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay. 

Dr. HICE. Now, some of this is happening in the North Slope 

area, too? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Everything I just described is happening in the 

North Slope. 

Dr. HICE. OK. Well, the last question, then. I am assuming this 

decreases the environmental footprint while increasing production? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Absolutely. It decreases it pretty significantly. If you 

are drilling 65-acre pads versus 12-acre pads, you are developing 

a bigger area from a smaller pad. That significantly reduces the 

amount of gravel that we have to put on the surface. So, it has a 

very substantial impact. 

We do some other things, as well. We try to locate valves so we 

don’t have to put access roads off of our existing gravel roads. At 

Alpine, the airport also serves as a road. It is not a separate air 

strip, separate from our facilities up there. So, lots of things we do 

along those lines to minimize our footprint. 

Dr. HICE. OK. Well, thank you very much. That was very 

insightful. Mr. Chairman, I yield. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the gentleman. Now I will come to my round 

of questioning. 

Mr. Dixon, I want to highlight something that you said that has 

not really been picked on. A lot of your members are employed in 

the oil and gas industry. Can you describe the type of jobs that 

those members actually do in the industry? 

Mr. DIXON. Yes. We have heavy equipment, low-boy drivers that 

haul equipment around from Prudhoe Bay to Kuparuk, all over. We 

have warehousemen, we have expediters, we have logistics. Our 

general foremen on pipeline jobs are basically a logistics coordinator for all equipment, men, and materials moving on these jobs. 

That is pipeline. And pipe stringing, that has to go with the pipeline jobs. 

On our civil jobs we have—with Nanook we have B-70s, which 

are big, earth-moving vehicles. I believe it is around 40–50 yards 

each one holds. We also have maxi-hauls, which are big tractortrailer end dumps. 

To the large degree, in a nutshell, truck drivers, warehousemen, 

and logistics. 

Dr. GOSAR. And what kind of—— 

Mr. DIXON. And surveyors, sorry. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. What kind of background and education is provided just to get those jobs? What kind of process do you go just 

to get those jobs? 

Mr. DIXON. Well, if it is people that have come into our union, 

we get their resumes, we do background checks on what their 

qualifications are and where they got them from. 

Others are going through the apprenticeship program. Developing the apprentices, we have found the contractors actually like 

the apprentices. They have better skills than some of the people 

that have not gone through our apprenticeship program that are 

journeymen. 

So, it is a combination of all that. For the surveyors, we have a 

competency test that they have to take. For a party chief, chief of 

66 

parties, associate party chief, and a chairman’s test, to make sure 

that they have the qualifications to go up there. 

Dr. GOSAR. So, pretty rigorous background, right? 

Mr. DIXON. Yes, pretty good. 

Dr. GOSAR. Not everybody makes it? 

Mr. DIXON. No. Some I get in my office that are not too happy 

because they don’t seem to be qualified. And I have to tell them 

that. 

Dr. GOSAR. And in your experience, how are they able to ensure 

that the environment and species are taken care of near the pipelines, the product, the process? How do they go about that? 

Mr. DIXON. Well, since GMT-1 was the most recent job here this 

winter, I will give you an idea. Even all the years I worked out in 

the pipeline and the mainlines and the North Slope, for an example, the GMT-1 job, before we can dispatch somebody up there, you 

have to have a current NSTC card, which is a North Slope 

Training Co-op card. It trains about the North Slope safety, spills, 

the wildlife, and Arctic environment. That is an 8-hour class that 

they have to have, and we have refreshers on that when the producers change something in that. 

For an example, on GMT-1, when a worker comes to the job and 

does orientation, ConocoPhillips has a 2-hour video that you have 

to sit down and watch, and it covers everything from dealing with 

the relationship with the Native Alaskans that live around there, 

to oil spills, to your equipment that comes out there—anything 

with a motor on it has a drip pan underneath it, tied to it on the 

motor, and then, if it is parked you have to put a secondary containment underneath that, all the way to—there is no parking on 

the lakes, on the frozen lakes, to no fueling, either. 

In short, my personal opinion is I think the producers are a very 

good steward of the land. They look after the people, the environment, and the animals. There is no harassing of animals, either. 

They have the right of way, wherever, no matter what. 

Dr. GOSAR. I appreciate it. 

Mr. Jepsen, a couple quick questions on the pipeline. I know the 

pipeline was designed for the maximum going through there, keeping the friction warm, less leakage. Are there any details about the 

limit of how far it goes, or if no oil is going through there, is there 

any revert on that contract, in regards to the land that the pipeline 

is on? 

Mr. JEPSEN. I am sorry, can you repeat the last part of that 

question? 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. If there is no oil going through that pipeline, 

does the pipeline revert back? Is it stopped? Are there any provisions along those lines? 

Mr. JEPSEN. Yes. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline system operates on 

a right-of-way from the Federal Government, as well as the state, 

and across Native lands. And we have that right-of-way as long as 

we are producing oil. If a pipeline shuts down, then there are provisions in the right-of-way that describe what we are going to do to 

remediate the land and potentially remove the pipeline out of the 

right-of-way, basically dismantle it. 

Dr. GOSAR. What is that timetable, if you are not transporting 

oil? Is it days, months, years? 

67 

Mr. JEPSEN. I don’t know the answer to that question off the top 

of my head. It is not days and months. Obviously, dismantling the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline system would be a—— 

Dr. GOSAR. No, I understand. But the delivery through the 

pipeline of oil. 

Mr. JEPSEN. OK. I am not familiar if there is a clause of that 

nature. But I think what would happen is you are going to see a 

significant decline of oil. You won’t be able to do it, either economically or technically, move the oil through the pipeline. I am not 

familiar with any sort of specific time frame. 

Dr. GOSAR. I appreciate it. Just if you do find that, it may 

generate some other questions for you. 

Now I thank all of you for traveling so far and coming forward. 

I thank you for your valuable testimony. 

And the Members may have additional questions. If so, we ask 

you to respond to those in writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), 

members of the Committee must submit those witness questions 

within 3 business days following the hearing, and the hearing 

record will be held open for 10 days for those responses. 

If there is no further business, the Subcommittee stands 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

Æ