ARCflC COASTAL PLAIN LEASING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

HOUSE · OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

LEASING OF THE 1002 AREA OF THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE (ANWR) TO THE on. EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY 

~276CC .. 

AUGUST 3, 1995-WASHINGTON, DC 

Serial No. 104-33 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Resourcee 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON : 1995 

For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office 

Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 20402 

ISBN 0-16- 047777-8 
COMMITTEE ON .RESOURCES 

DON YOUNG, Alaaka, Clulirman 

JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah 

JIM SAXTON, New JerRY 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., TeD.D.el!llee 

JOEL HEFLEY, Colorado 

JOHN T. DOOLlTrLE, California 

WAYNE ALLARD, Colorado 

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland 

KEN CALVERT, California 

RICHARD W. POMBO, California 

PETER G. TORKILDSEN, Ma~~~achusette 

J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona 

FRANK A. CREMEANS, Ohio 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

WES COOLEY, Oregon 

HELEN CHENOWETH, Idaho 

LINDA SMITH, Washington 

GEORGE P. RADANOVICH, California 

WALTER B. JONES, JR., North Carolina 

WILLIAM M. (MAC) THORNBERRY, Teus 

RICHARD (DOC) HASTINGS, Wuhiniton 

JACK METCALF, Washington 

JAMES B. LONGLEY, JR., Maine 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

JOHN E. ENSIGN, Nevada 

GEORGE MILLER, California 

NICK J. RAHALL n, West Virginia 

BRUCEF.VENTO,Mmmesom 

DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

PAT WILLIAMS, Monmna 

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut 

BILL RICHARDSON, New Mexico 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American ·samoa 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

NEIL ABERCROMBIE, Hawaii 

GERRY E. STUDDS, Massachusetts 

W.J. (BILLY) TAUZIN, Louisiana 

SOLOMON P. ORTIZ, Tens 

OWEN B. PICKETT, VIrginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

CALVIN M. DOOLEY, Californi~ 

CARLOS A. ROMERO-BARCELO, Puerto 

Rico 

MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York 

ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam 

SAM FARR, California 

DANIEL VAL KrsH, Chief af Stuff 

DAVID DYB, Chief COUI!Ml 

ClmrBrJ:NB KBNNBDY, Chie{Ckrlr./Admini.8tmtor 

JOHN LAWRENCE, Democratic Stuff Director 

(ll) 
CONTENTS 

Hearing held August 3, 1995 ................................................................................. . Statement of Members: 

Calvert, Hon. Ken, a U.S. Representative from California .......................... . Richardson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Representative from New Mexico ................ .. Saxton, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Representative from New Jersey ........................ . Stevens, Hon. Ted, a U.S. senator from Alaska ........................................... . Vento, Hon. Bruce F., a U.S. Representative from Minnesota .................... . Statement of Witnesses: 

Ahmaogak, Mayor George N., Sr., North Slope Borough, AK (prepared 

statement) ..................................................................................................... . American Petroleum Institute (prepared statement) .................................. .. Babbitt, Bruce, Secretary of the Interior (p(;ifared statement) ................. .. 

Bra'i\:e~=~~e:!~e-~~~:.~~ ... .' ... ~~~-.~~.~-~.~-~~~~~ .. ::::::::::: Cline, David R., Alaska Regional Vice President, National Audubon Society ................................................................................................................. .. 

Hart~~~tt:~~~d;~i:··M:Ai>iso···i>;~i~··~ii~:··<P~P~···~~t;;~ ment) ............................................................................................................ .. Herrera, Roger C., Consultant to Arctic Power ........................................... .. 

Jam~~::.s~~~i~t s~riiii"&;~~·;·~~ti~"viii;g;;·.AK·:::::::::::::::: Pre&ared statement ................................................................................. .. 

Jol:: ... :~~~.~:: .. ~~~~~.~.~~~-~~~· .. ~~~~~.~~ .. ~~~~~~~:.~~~-~~~~~: Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Kerr, Scott 1., Manager, Kuparuk Development, ARCO Alaska, Inc. (prepared statement) .......................................................................................... . Leavitt, Oliver, Vice President, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation ............ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Leshy, John D.kSolicitor, Department of the Interior .................................. . Miller, Debbie~::~., author (prepared statement) ........................................... .. Morgan, John C., President, BPX (Alaska) Inc. (prepared statement) ...... .. Pearce Drue, Alaska State Senate President (prepared statement) ........... . Rexford, Delbert, Special Assistant to Mayor George N. Ahmaogak, Sr., 

North Slope Borough, AK ............................................................................ . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Shively, Commissioner John, Alaska Department of Natural Resources ... . Prepared statement .................................................................................. . Additional material supplied: Audubon: News release of June 5, 1987, "No Comparison: Energy development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge vs. Drilling on Audubon's 

Rainey Sanctuary" ....................................................................................... . Interior Department: Release of November 20, 1957, "Secre;:a?' Seaton 

t;:C~e2~l~:g~~~ .. ~ .. ~.~ .. ~ .. ~:~~~: .. ~.~~~ ..... ~~~~~!: Communications submitted: 

Chretien, Ambassador Raymond (Canada): Letter of July 31, 1995, to 

Hon. Bill Richardson .................................................................................... . Knowles, Gov. Tony (Alaska): Letter with attachments of June 19, 1995, 

to Representative ......................................................................................... . Miller, Debbie S. (Caribou Enterprises): Letter of August 14, 1995, to 

Representative Don Young .......................................................................... . Sacco, Michael (SIU): Letter of August 2, 1995, to Hon. Don Young .......... . 

(III) 

Page 

1 

1 

16 

5 

6 

4 

136 

220 

74 

45 

154 

48 

170 

217 

46 

164 

59 

184 

43 

145 

203 

60 

188 

22 

236 

224 

227 

26 

128 

24 

83 

180 

69 

72 

90 

234 

252 
IV 

Communications submitted-Continued 

Winter, Linda, and Patricia Hankenson (Defenders of Wildlife): Letter 

of August 16, 1995, to Hon. Don Young...................................................... 247 
ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN LEASING 

THURSDAY, AUGUST 3, 1995 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10, in room 1324, 

Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Ken Calvert (Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources) presiding. 

STATEMENT OF HON. KEN CALVERT, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA; AND CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

Mr. CALVERT. The committee will come to order. I am sorry to 

report that the Chairman is unable to be with us today. He is recovering from a medical procedure he underwent on Monday at Bethesda Naval Hospital. The procedure involved the insertion of a 

small pipe called a stent into an artery to improve his blood flow. 

He is in good condition, resting comfortably and is expected to be 

released from the hospital soon, so I know our prayers are with 

him. The Chairman has asked me to preside over this hearing in 

his absence. 

The committee today will hear testimony regarding leasing of the 

1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, referred to as 

ANWR, to the oil exploration and development industry. As everyone is aware, the Budget Resolution recently adopted by the House and Senate contains provision requiring a leasing program to take place in ANWR. The resolution estimates that such 

a program would raise over $1 billion over the next five to seven 

years. Any future development could produce billions in the form 

of royalties and taxes to states and Federal Government. 

It is therefore incumbent upon this committee to craft imple- menting legislation, through the Reconciliation process, which allows the government to reach targets set forth in the Budget Resolution. 

In order to best examine this issue, it is important to examine 

it from an economic- and oil-dependence perspective. 

Last year the Department of Commerce issued a report to the 

President which concluded that we are over 50 percent dependent 

on imports for our oil, and as such, net imports present a threat 

to our national security. 

In the latest report, May 1995, Commerce reported the highest 

trade deficit we have ever experienced. The largest single trade deficit commodities are crude oil and refined products, which total 

over $50 billion annually. 

(1) 
2 

We have done little in the country over the past decade to encourage domestic production. In fact, the oil industry has lost nearly 500,000 good-paying jobs in the last decade. That is more than 

the auto, steel and textile industries combined. We must encourage 

domestic production, and developing ANWR is a step in the right 

direction. 

At present price, every 100,000 barrels of oil that we can produce 

per day to replace imports will decrease our trade deficit by $600 

million annually. 

It is against that backdrop that I encourage members to examine 

this issue. We have an opportunity to allow leasing to take place 

in our continent's best oil and gas prospect. Exploration will only 

occur during the winter when the ground is frozen so there will be 

minimal surface disruption. If no oil is found, the government will 

still receive revenues from leasing, and there will be virtually no 

impact on the Coastal Plain. 

The question no longer is should we develop ANWR, but how can 

it best be done. 

Many of the members are new to the Congress and committee 

and, like myself, may not be totally familiar with this issue. For 

that reason, the Chairman has asked that I provide members with 

some background. The majority of what now makes up ANWR was set aside in 

1960. It consists of approximately 19 million acres in the northeast 

corner of Alaska, an area about the size of South Carolina, as you 

can see on that map. 8 million acres or 42 percent has been designated wilderness. 

The wilderness was established in 1980 pursuant to passage of 

the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, ANILCA 

ANILCA also directed the Secretary of Interior to study the oil 

and gas potential of the 1002 area, which consists of 1.5 million 

acres and is often referred to as the Coastal Plain. 

The maximum area which would be used for surface facilities, if 

development takes place, is approximately 12,000 acres or less 

than one percent of the Coastal Plain. This is an area about the 

size of Dulles Airport. 

Energy potential of the Coastal Plain: The Interior Department 

study completed in 1987 estimated there was a 119 percent chance 

of finding from 3.2 to 9.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil under the 

Coastal Plain. 

In 1991, the Interior Department revised these estimates and 

said there is a 46 percent chance of finding similar quantities of 

recoverable oil in the Coastal Plain. 

The GAO in 1993 reviewed the 1991 BLM update and agreed 

that ANWR is likely to contain a substantial amount of oil. I don't 

think anyone disagrees with that. 

A great deal of attention has been paid recently to resource estimates generated by USGS and others. The Chairman questions the 

purposes for which they are being used. In any event, the USGS 

estimates do not differ in any meaningful way from the estimates 

of BLM or GAO. The fact of the matter is no one will really know 

what lies under ANWR until it is drilled. 
3 

Since history shows that unexplored areas result in oil discoveries only two percent of the time, a 46 percent chance of finding 

oil deposits in this small area is an excellent probability. 

The Prudhoe Bay currently accounts for about 24 percent of 

United States oil production. It is now at 1.5 million barrels a day 

and rapidly declining, down from over 2 million barrels per day in 

1988. The decline continues in spite of aggressive exploration and 

development efforts aimed at reversing that trend. Despite reports 

to the contrary, there is a consensus among geologists that ANWR 

offers the only chance to offset that decline. 

DOE predicted in 1991 that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline might 

cease operation as early as 2008. That underscores the importance 

of ANWR as the great remaining opportunity in Alaska. New production from ANWR would also accelerate the development of previously discovered uneconomic fields elsewhere on the North Slope. 

If exploration was authorized today, it would be at least ten to 

fifteen years before oil production could begin under existing regulations. 

There are about 33 caribou herds in Alaska. Four of them are 

found in Alaska's North Slope. Three of the herds have been exposed to oil and gas development in their ranges. Based on this experience, we are confident, with the appropriate stipulations in 

place, exploration and development can proceed in ANWR while 

protecting the Porcupine Caribou Herd. This herd of approximately 

150,000 animals is present on the Coastal Plain of ANWR for six 

to eight weeks each summer during its migration. 

The two decades of exploration and development on the North 

Slope have clearly demonstrated what works in the Arctic environment, where improvements are needed. Similarly, Federal and 

state regulations are in place that will protect the environment. 

The state and others believe development on the North Slope has 

been positive. Congress can direct the regulatory tools necessary to 

permit exploration and development on the Coastal Plain of ANWR 

while protecting the environment. 

In May of 1990, a study revealed that development could create 

732,000 new jobs throughout the nation. This study also found that 

development would raise the gross national product, result in lower 

world oil prices and reduce the outflow of U.S. dollars to other nations. While these figures may be somewhat outdated, they will 

continue to illustrate the point that ANWR development would 

bring hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of revenue to this 

nation. 

We have assembled a variety of witnesses Mr. Young has 

brought with us today that he hopes will provide members with a 

balanced view from which they can make informed decisions. I look 

forward to hearing from each one of them and would like to now 

turn the mike over to the ranking member, Mr. Miller from California. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Chairman. I am going to yield my mike 

for an opening statement from Mr. Vento. 
4 

STATEMENT OF BON. BRUCE VENTO, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM MINNESOTA 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman, let me convey my wish to Chairman 

Young for a speedy recovery. I am sorry to learn of his setback. 

Probably for the good of his heart, it is better he isn't here to hear 

me in any case. 

Mr. CALVERT. I am sure you are right. 

Mr. VENTO. As we disagree about this and disagree sharply. You 

know, Mr. Chairman, the argument here has gone from energy security to deficit reduction to job production and I think that there 

obviousll" are sharp differences over much of what has been por- trayed. For the new members, and we have many new members on 

this committee, the rules of the budget did not provide for counting 

an asset sale as a deficit reduction for the purposes of scoring! so 

the rules had to be chanN~dg this year in the context to accomfh:~h that, which I think is te · because the asset is really some · g in the bank so if you take it out and spend it you lose the money in the bank. And that was the concept behind it. 

Obviously, I think that many of tlie economic projections with regards to jobs and so forth are far-fetched and are not necessarily 

accurate. I think there are many other ways and activities we 

should be involved with. 

In terms of the issue, the price of oil, the initial studies here indicated there is probably a one in five chance of discovering oil in 

this area and that it would be economically productive if the cost 

today in 1995 dollars was $88 a barrel. Well, if you have checked 

the world market, I think the highest price this year has been 

something like $19.18. So the point is in terms of putting leases 

forward and moving in the direction we are there is not much of 

a probability that you are going to raise the types of dollars that 

are being suggested and in fact the leases that would be achieved 

or provided here based on renewed efforts of assessments by USGS 

woUld be abysmally low. 

The fact is, of course, that while there is maybe a 20 percent chance of finding oil, irrespective the footprint and the impact that 

this ·would have by not occupying a lot of space, has a broad im· 

pact. And there is probably a 100 percent chance of in fact perma· nently changing the biological diversity and the important characteristics of this area which has been known or been referred to as 

America's Serengeti. Historically, the traditional rationale for opening it, of course, 

has been national security. But now we are moving to, in fact, take 

the oil from Alaska and sell it on a broader world market. That 

was the point, in fact, of leW.slation that passed last week. So energy security, budget reduction, the fact is in terms of even filling the pipeline and other areas of Alaska there are numerous areas 

where due diligence in terms of development of leases that are outstanding would probably yield in fact more production of oil. 

And so I just think that the issue is one in which we have to go back to square one. We don't have a national security problem here. We still have the tremendous resources. The studies that 

went forth even in the mid-'80's by the BLM, the late 'SO's, pointed 

out the importance of this area to literally millions of migrating waterfowl such as the 160,000 herd of caribou and the Porcupine 
5 

Caribou Herd. I, of course, had the opportunity, and I hope many 

members of the committee will have the opportunity to visit this 

area and toget on the ground and take a look at what we are talking about. You know, I think they will recognize the tremendous 

problems in terms of development and exploration that will occur. 

And of course when you just say it is just a small area, you have 

to look at what that footprint does. I mean, you are dealing with 

a key interface in terms of the ecosystem in this area. Developing 

the Arctic range would indeed be profitable for oil companies and 

for the state of Alaska, at least if they get the 90 percent that they 

are pursuing in court with regard to this. But I am not convinced 

that the American people are willing to trade an internationally acclaimed natural legacy and a future generation•s inheritance for today's political gains, for the expedience of full profits. 

The Caribou calving ground in the Coastal Plain is a unique ecosystem. It is recognized for its diversity. And I mentioned that 

there are over 200 notable species of wildlife dependent upon the 

Coastal Plain for survival. And of course key in that is a native 

Alaskan group as a representative by the Gwich•in Tribe will testify today. 

l doubt that there will be much disagreement regarding ANWR•s 

world class ecosystem status. The Arctic Refuge wasn't haphazardly thrown into a mix of wilderness protection. The fact is we 

specifically protected that in the 1980 law so that it wouldn't be 

available for development, so that there would be a careful review 

of this. I recall that it was a pragmatic, careful Republican incidentally, President Eisenhower, who initiated the process for protection of this critically biological area. 

For the past 14 years the plain has been in a twilight zone, enjoying the status of wilderness without the full force of protection 

of law. Today the failure to designate the Coastal Plain as wilderness of course has a shadow and places this unique ecosystem at 

risk. 

As a principle sponsor of legislation in the House this year, I am, 

with 80 sponsors to date this session, offering legislation which will 

permanently protect the Arctic Refuge as wilderness. And I would 

recall that the initial sponsor of this legislation and advocate was 

one of our mentors and friends, Chairman Mo Udall. And I quote what he said. "Not in our generation, nor ever again will we have 

a land and wildlife opportunity approaching the scope and importance of this one. In terms of wilderness preservation, Alaska is the 

last frontier. This time, given one great final chance, let us strive 

to do it right." 

The American people want adequate protections for special natural resource areas such as ANWR, this Caribou calving grounds. 

Neither America nor Alaska is rich enough to lose this precious resource nor poor enough to need to spend it. 

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Saxton has something. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JIM SAXTON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM NEW JERSEY 

Mr. SAXTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. First 

I just would like to welcome Senator Stevens to the House side this 
6 

morning. Senator Stevens probably doesn't remember, but in 1984 

when I was elected, the very first thing I did when I came here was 

to meet Senator Stevens, the first Senator I had met outside of my 

home state, and together we held a news conference in November 

or December to designate 1985 as the Year of the Ocean. And I will 

always remember that and appreciate the good help that you gave 

me that day and in the days to follow. 

As I look around the room, when I came in the room I looked at 

the map, and I looked around the room, and I listened to two very 

articulate opening statements. And then I realized that I am the 

only person today sitting on the panel who was a member of the 

Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee in 1988, the last time 

we had this war. And it is a little like deja vu all over again. And 

I would just say to the members who haven't heard this issue indepth yet that it is really intriguing. It is really interesting and 

whether you come down on the side of energy security and the issues that have to do with our country's tenuous situation relative 

to foreign imported oil and maybe domestic exported oil, whatever, 

those are important issues as well as the economic ramifications of 

this. And there are also some very important issues that have to 

do with the ecological balance or the potential damage that could 

be done to it in the ANWR area. And frankly, as I listened to all 

these arguments the last time, and as the Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries Committee reported the bill to permit development, I 

came down as a no. Now I am not saying that I will do that this 

time, but just to demonstrate the tenuous nature of that success, 

it was shortly after the bill was reported that the Exxon Valdez incident occurred. And that was enough to bury this thing since 

1988. And so it is really-you are all going to hear a very interesting set of facts, different opinions and it is really important. And 

so I, once again, look forward to hearing testimony and to taking 

part in this very, very important process. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Saxton. We are pleased to have 

with us today the distinguished senior senator from Alaska, Senator Ted Stevens, who would like to make some comments on this 

issue which is of great importance to the state of Alaska. Senator, 

I know Chairman Young is happy that you are able to come here 

in his absence and he appreciates it very much. Senator. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TED STEVENS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

ALASKA 

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is nice to 

be back in this room again. I spent a lot of time in this room in 

the '50's when some of the issues that have just been discussed 

were reviewed by this committee. I am pleased to be here with you 

and members of the committee, Mr. Miller, again. 

I am sad that my good friend Don Young, my Congressman, is 

not here. I did talk to him this morning. He is doing very well. He 

is no longer in the ICU, the Intensive Care Unit. He is feeling very 

well. I told him about some of my friends at home that had the 

same procedure, the stent. It works very well. I have known people 

who have had it, so it will be a great relief to him, I think, when 

he gets used to this new concept. He has been a great leader in this 
7 

area and I am sad that he is not here when I have this opportunity 

to appear before this committee once again. 

I was the Assistant to the Secretary of Interior in 1957 when this 

area originally was set aside as the Arctic Wildlife Range. At that 

time, we were dealing with an issue that was very difficult for 

Alaska, and that was that the entire Arctic had been withdrawn 

during the conduct of World War II from all forms of activity. At 

the time we announced this designation of the area as a Range in 

November of 1957, I was Assistant to the Secretary of Interior, 

Fred Seaton. Later as Solicitor of the Interior Department I came 

up here and discussed the future of the Alaska lands with this 

committee. 

I think it is important to note that the day that we announced 

that this area was set aside was the day that also opened the rest 

of the Arctic, other than Naval Petroleum Reserve Number 4, to 

mineral leasing. We established the largest wildlife range in the 

country of 9 million acres. At the time that that was announced-

! want to submit this to you for your record-we, in creating the 

Arctic Wildlife Range, an enormous area of 9 million acres, specifically provided that that land was available for mineral leasing 

under stipulations approved by the Secretary of the Interior to protect the fish and wildlife. We also opened the balance of the Arctic, 

except for the public, the Naval Petroleum Reserve to mineral leasing in general. 

I think it is important to note that the Arctic Wildlife Range, ultimately led to the creation in 1980 of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge. At the time it was created, Senator Jackson, who was the 

principal proponent of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA), insisted and did protect under Section 

1002, a million and a half acres of the ANWR Coastal Plain for oil 

and gas exploration. 

We have this map here today to show you the location on the 

upper northeast comer of Alaska of the total area known as ANWR 

now, with the Coastal Plain in yellow. The 1-1/2 million acres that 

is set aside for oil and gas exploration was never wilderness. It was 

never withdrawn from oil and gas leasing. It had to have approval 

by Congress of an environment impact statement prepared by the 

Department of Interior. 

We have had that Environmental Impact Statement before us for 

many years. I hope that you will keep in mind that 85 percent of 

all the Fish and Wildlife Service lands are in Alaska, 76 million 

acres in total. 68 percent of all the National Park Service lands are 

in Alaska, another 54 million acres; and 60 percent of all the wilderness that has been designated by Congress is in Alaska, 57 million acres. Senator Jackson was the leader in creating all that, and 

I would like to continue to remind people he was the one that said 

that it has to be determined whether the Arctic Coastal Plain can 

produce oil and gas. 

The Arctic Coastal Plain has a fantastic potential. There is no 

question that we are now dealing with a national issue, as Mr. 

Saxton has said. And there are pros and cons. There are assertions 

on each side. 

I have come today to try to deal with some of the history because 

I am one person in government that has lived through it all. And 
8 

I can never remember an action of the Federal Government that 

has denied that this area should be open to oil and gas exploration. 

It has never been closed since the days of the 1920 Mineral Leasing 

Act. Most people don't know that at the time that act was under 

consideration by Congress there were three teams in Alaska out up 

in this north country checking out the traces of oil that were found 

along the coast of the Arctic Ocean. Really, that action led to the 

1920 Mineral Leasing Act, because there were some people that believed that those lands should not be staked under the Oil Mining 

Law but we should have a new means of making lands available 

for oil and gas exploration. · The difficulty came, of course, with World War II. The area was 

closed for that whole period. After World War II it was, as I said, 

1957 before we got that Public Land Order 82 lifted, and by that 

time we had the request for establishing the Arctic National Wildlife Range. 

That req11est originated, Mr. Chairman, with a request from the 

Fairbanks Women's Garden Club for action by the Federal Government to protect the flora and fauna of the Arctic while oil and gas 

exploration proceeded. Their letter, if you want that, specifically referred to the pressure they knew that was coming, and they wanted some action by the government to assure that when that went 

forward the fish and wildlife would be considered. They did not 

want the Arctic Coastal Plain closed. 

The order issued in 1957 did not close it and no action taken by 

Congress yet has closed it. And we vigorously oppose closing it. As 

a matter of fact, we believe that this is an area of substantial interest to the Federal Government and to the people of the United 

States. 

I remember so well when we tried to proceed with Prudhoe Bay, 

which is in the area you see on the map west of the Coastal Plain, 

we had this tremendous battle concerning whether we should be 

able to proceed. It just so happens that the state of Alaska selected 

under the Statehood Act some of those lands around Prudhoe Bay. 

We were not able to select the lands in the area at issue now because of the reservation of those lands by the order that was issued 

in '57 creating the Arctic Wildlife Range. We also felt we didn't 

have to select these lands because oil and gas leasing was permitted there pursuant to the 1920 act under regulations to be issued by the Secretary of the Interior. 

Now we are here today because of the budget resolution. I hasten 

to comment, Mr. Vento, that the President of the United States, 

and we are indebted to President Clinton for this action, asked for 

the change in consideration of assets. He asked to be able to score 

assets because he wanted to sell Elk Hills and he wanted to sell 

the helium reserve. And Congress has acceded to that. This potential lease sale for oil and gas exploration in the 1002 area benefits 

from the President's suggestion. We are not capable of bringing 

that about alone or we would have done it a long time ago, and I 

was delighted to see President Clinton take that initiative. 

With new technology we have to look at what we did in Prudhoe 

Bay. By the way, when you talk about Prudhoe Bay, remember, 

that we heard all of these arguments when we tried to get the pipeline right-of-way for the transportation of oil from Prudhoe Bay to 
9 

market in Valdez. All of the arguments, particularly one about the 

caribou, that we were going to destroy the caribou, came at us. It 

is just absolutely not true. 

The Central Arctic Herd, which is the one that is in the vicinity of Prudhoe Bay, has grown from a herd of 3000 animals to somewhere in the vicinity of 23,000 animals. It no longer even migrates 

because of the positive changes that were made in the area when 

the University of Alaska discovered a new form of grass that could 

be planted up there after there was any intrusion. They now have 

such good feed that they don't migrate. At issue now is the even 

more prolific Porcupine Caribou herd. If this herd does in fact migrate, the Porcupine Herd migrates from the Gwich'in country over 

in Canada up to the Coastal Plain and back. As the Chairman has 

said, these animals are not in Alaska more than six weeks per 

year. The only reason they are there at all is to do their calving 

in and around the Arctic Plain. As a matter of fact, this year none 

of them calved in that area. I think it is noteworthy that the 

Central Herd that is in the Prudhoe Bay area do their calving right in the Kuparuk Oil Field. You can go up there. I invite you to come 

back, Mr. Vento, during the calving season and see them out there 

standing right among the rigs, right among the oil facilities. And 

they are there, they have their calves, and they are not disturbed. 

As a matter of fact, the Central herd have increased in numbers 

more than any caribou herd in the world. And people tell us that 

this operation at issue now is going to disturb the Porcupine caribou herd. It is not true. 

Now when we deal with this, even since the day of developing the Prudhoe Bay, technology has changed. The drill pads at 

Prudhoe Bay were 20 acres apiece for every drill pad. Today the 

drill pad is going to be less than five acres. The total footprint of 

the oil industry to recover this oil if it is there-we believe it iswill be, as you said, Mr. Chairman, less than the land dedicated 

to Dulles Airport. Now we have-the oil industry has now planned and are seeking permits for what we call roadless drilling pads. The Prudhoe B~y pads were connected by roads and by pipelines above ground. Future drill pads and pipelines will all be below 

ground and they will be roadless. They will do this by helicopter. 

We are dealing with a different situation now in terms of what 

we have learned, and we did learn, unfortunately, a lot from the 

Exxon Valdez, also, Mr. Vento. If you want to go back and look and 

see what we did after that, we required tu(i:'s for these tankers 

when they come into our waters. We now require them to be double 

hulled. We now have vessel traffic control for the vessels, and not 

just down to the Bligh Reef where the Exxon Valdez ran aground. We have it all the way out to where they enter the Pacific Ocean. 

We have control over these tankers now every minute they are in 

the Prince William Sound. They are escorted by tugs. 

That was a terrible lesson we learned, but it should not determine the future, whether we look at this vast area for its oil and 

gas potential. At the time the state selected its lands, we thought 

we had a potential there at Prudhoe Bay. The Department of Interior had projected that there was a 99 percent chance that there 

was less than a billion barrels. We have now produced 11 billion 

barrels of oil from Prudhoe Bay. 
10 

The projections you hear today are from conservative people who 

make estimates in the U.S. Geological Survey. And I don't blame 

them for being conservative, but just think of this-we built the 

pipeline from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez. It has supplied, at the height 

of the Gulf War, 2.1 million barrels a day to the United States. As 

a matter of fact, it has been transporting 25 percent of the domestic oil to market. 

It is declining now. It is down below one and a half million barrels a day. We have already lost 600,000 barrels a day because the 

production at Prudhoe Bay is starting to play out. It is not going 

to disappear overnight, but it is starting to play out. We believe it 

is absolutely essential to open this area now to oil and gas explo- ration so that we can keep that pipeline filled and we can provide 

the type of security that we need to have the oil production capability to meet our basic national needs. 

Now let me close with this, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, I am always concerned when I have to publicly disagree 

with some of our people. The Gwich'in people have been brought 

here, I think, by those who are extremists, who try to portray that 

they are being picked on by other Alaskans. Almost all Alaskans 

support what I am testifying for today. 

I know that the vast majority of Alaska natives do, and you will 

hear from them, but the Gwich'in people come in with claims about 

the potential harm to this Porcupine Caribou Herd. They will not 

tell you that in the area of the Porcupine's home over in Canada 

there has in fact been oil and gas exploration. They will not tell 

you that they themselves sought to lease-and here I have got a 

copy of the lease-their own lands through which this caribou herd 

transit. And the caribou are there in the Gwich'in lands longer than they are on the North Slope, that they started to-they wanted to lease. They did lease their lands for oil and gas exploration. And in 1980 when the leases expired they tried again. 

Remember, this is one of the three areas of Alaska that did not 

participate in the Alaska Native Land Claim Settlement Act. These 

people have their own reservation. The opted to take their own reservation, primarily because they are part of the Gwich'in from Canada. 

The rest of the Alaska natives settled on an approved act passed 

by Congress to settle the claims of Alaska natives against the United States. The Gwich'in people took the lands that they had at the 

time under a semi-reservation status and made it their reservation. 

These people now are opposing all of their brothers and sisters in 

the native movement in Alaska, and I think that is wrong. 

I particularly urge that you not listen to them with regard to the 

concept of whether we are going to risk the Porcupine Caribou 

Herd with the activities of the oil and gas industry in the Arctic 

Plain if it takes place. Now I think that it is time for us to get this 

done. 

Even if we approve it this year, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the committee, it will be about 2005 before oil would be able to flow 

from this area, the Arctic Coastal Plain area, into the pipeline. By that time, the through-put of the pipeline will be down to about 

100,000 barrels a day. 
11 

Let me take you back to the map. The pipeline coming out of the 

coastal plain does not have to go through wilderness to get to the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That is another assertion I have just heard 

recently. 

This is an area that has never been closed to oil and gas exploration and production. It is not wilderness. In order to get the oil 

out of the coastal plain over to our pipeline, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, it can be done very easily without going through wilderness, 

and it would be, I think, very much in the best interests of the 

United States. 

Now I will be glad to answer any questions you may have, Mr. 

Chairman. It is obvious that I still feel very strongly about this. I 

really did participate in the drafting, not only of the release that 

I am going to give you to put in your record, but of the order that 

created the Arctic Wildlife Range, and I know that we intended at 

that time that the whole area would be subject to oil and gas leasing. 

Now, the only area that is going to be subject to oil and gas leasing is the million and a half acres. And it is part of the original 

area set as it will be open to oil and gas leasing, I trust, when Congress takes the action that we request this year. 

I am grateful to you for your time and if you have any questions 

for me I would be pleased to answer them. 

[1957 Department of Interior release may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Senator. I don't have any questions, 

however I think several members up here would like to ask you 

some questions. And certainly if there is no objection, if your time 

permits after that period, you would be invited to join us here on 

the dias to ask any questions of any of our witnesses if you would 

like. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, that is an opportunity I have never had with 

this committee. I would love to do it, but the Defense Bill is on the 

floor, and as Chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, 

I think my place is on the floor during this debate on the authorizing of the bill. 

Mr. CALVERT. Me, too. With that, I believe Mr. Miller would like 

toMr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Senator, welcome 

to the committee, and thank you for your testimony. If I just might in the manner of a general discussion for a minute 

here, you stated, and I think correctly so, that we have learned a 

lot on both sides of the ledger from Prudhoe Bay and that the exploration and development industry is far different today almost 

everywhere in the world than it was when that venture was started. And it is certainly different even in Prudhoe Bay today than it 

was when it was started. And at the same time we have also 

learned a lot since the 1002 report was put out because that process has continued about the caribou. 

And you mentioned that the herd at Prudhoe Bay has increased 

substantially. Some would suggest that it should have, instead of 

being 23,000 it should be 48,000. I am not doing this for argumentative purposes, but, I mean, a lot of data has changed. And that 

has to be considered. 
12 

And I think the chances of passing this bill and the signature are 

pretty iffy. And I don't know which way it is iffy, but I think it is 

iffy one way or the other. It is relatively close in the two bodies 

here on whether or not it could ever be made acceptable to the Administration. 

One of my concerns is that at the moment this starts to appear 

to be sort of a budget-driven process. And as you know, there is a 

lot of emotion, a lot of interest on either side. And the questions 

about this herd of caribou that migrate and whether or not the core 

calving area is as we thought it was and whether it changes, and 

a lot of data that has come to light today in the technology of the 

oil industry, whether or not stipulations can be developed which in 

terms of surface occupancy, whether some of these areas can be 

beached out through directional drilling, that wasn't available in 

the early '60's but is today and well known and capable of doing 

those kinds of things, time of year, usage oflands is, you know, one 

of the early exploratory sites was developed in the winter and expensive to do it that way. 

But I don't think the sponsors would have a problem with that. 

But the footprint of that site is almost indistinguishable from the 

surrounding area because of the way it was done and the care that 

was taken. And you have now talked about much smaller paths, 

use of helicopters, work done in the winter. Again, some data on 

this area suggests that may be somewhat more difticult because of 

a lack of snowfall compared to-and water that is used to build ice 

roads and the work that we have witnessed at Prudhoe. 

I am just wondering how do we get a full debate and discussion 

around a number of these issues, because I am concerned at some 

point these stipulations and that start to take a hit on expected 

revenues that we have for the purposes of budget. And at some 

point, you know, how tightly is this linked into the process that we 

are going to go through later in terms of reconciliation. And this 

has been put into the budget for-,..what is the-this is assigned a 

f1gure in the budget. What is the-$1.3 billion or something over 

the seven years? 

Mr. STEVENS. That is just for leasing, Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. I understand that, but that goes to where you are 

going to lease, and what is available and what isn't, and what is 

attractive and what isn't. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, they paid $900 million just to look for the 

leases there on the lands at Prudhoe Bay, and that was 1966. You 

know, we are talking about a very small amount of money for this 

potential. It is discounted, I think, because of the probability that 

whoever gets those leases is going to have to live through a lawsuit. It undoubtedly will be brought, but I do think that there is 

a lot more money out there for these leases than you realize. You 

know, I disagree with you there. The lease--

Mr. MILLER. Well, that might be so, but I want to know to what 

extent we can deal with environmental concerns and using stateof-the-art technology which may diminish, eventually, the expected 

royalties and/or the value of the lease. It may be more expensive 

to develop, and they will make economic decisions when they bid 

like anyone else. 
13 

But my concern is that we are driven into holding onto a figure here that doesn't allow discussions of these other matters that are 

of concern to a great many people if development should in fact 

take place. Mr. STEVENS. Well, those people should go up and go across the 

border in Canada and look at the Tuktoyaktuk area. You know, 

they have been drilling up there and drilling wells. They have 

drilled over 150 of them. They have drilled wells right up to the 

Canadian border, and we didn't hear any of this concern at that 

time. We only hear concerns when we start dealing with the Alaska 

Arctic. 

This one area was set aside for oil and gas exploration. It was 

not set aside for wilderness, and what you are saying is we ought 

to apply to it wilderness characteristics. 

Mr. MILLER. No, no. I am asking. I mean, maybe your answer is 

that you will not accept any stipulations on how this area is developed. 

Mr. STEVENS. I never said that. As a matter of fact, I am one---

Mr. MILLER. That is what I am asking. Mr. STEVENS [continuing]. one of the ones back in 1957 who said 

there ought to be stipulations to protect the fish and wildlife. We 

think we have done that. That is what has led to the smaller pad. That is what has led to the roadless pad. That is what has led to 

the concept they will drill only in the wintertime. That is what has 

led to some of the stipulations that are currently in effect at 

Prudhoe Bay itself. 

Now we have not, as I have said, we have not allowed anyone 

to interfere with those caribou. The caribou around Prudhoe Bay 

are protected as well as any animals in this world. They have not 

been able to be harvested by the people who have worked there. Th~y had to comply with Alaska laws. 

The native people do. The native people take those caribou, and 

they are a substantial meat resource for them, that increase in that 

herd. It might well have been a doubling of that herd if it had not 

been available to the native people for taking the caribou for their 

own use. 

But as a practical matter, we have those stipulations, Mr. Miller. 

They are in the negotiations that have been going on now since 

1981 for proceeding for leasing on this land. They are ready to go 

now and we-there is no reason for any additional stipulations because due to the negotiation that has taken place already, they have reduced the size of the land to be used, they have changed 

the method of exploration. 

Even the technology that has been developed, Mr. Miller, we 

used to talk about one out of nine wells being successful. You don't 

drill eight bad wells in the Arctic. It costs too much money. There 

is going to be one major well that will determine whether or not 

there is oil or gas there. And I think that is another thing you 

ought to keep in mind. This is not an area of rampant kind of.drill 

a hole here and there and there. It just costs too much. These are 

deep wells, very deep wells. 

Drilling through frozen subsurface permafrost is exceedingly difficult to do. It has high technology involved, and no one risks that 

·kind of technology because of environmental hazards. They are not 
14 

making those mistakes, Mr. Miller. I would urge you to come up and take a look at what is up there now. 

What is more, once you go look at some of the places that were 

the pipeline camps during the pipeline days and try to find them 

today. Come try to find them. Under our stipulations they had to 

close them down when the pipeline construction period was over. 

You go find where they were. 

We restored the surface of that land. As I said, we made it better 

because we planted those new grasses that the University of Alaska developed. But people don't give us credit for being environmentalists. We live in this land. We are not going to destroy it. 

Those native people live up there, in particular, they are the predominant population. They believe in protecting their land, and we 

are going to do it very carefully. I do think we don't get credit for 

that. 

Let me call you George. George, you and I know each other. I do 

not lie, and I have got to tell you I think if you bring people up, 

you would see what we have done. 

Mr. MILLER. Senator, I will ask you some other day because obviously you missed the import of my question. It wasn't about what 

you have done or what you are prepared to do. We have got to ask 

a question if we are going to write a bill, if we are simply going 

to just say the area shall be open, that is probably-you are going 

to find that is an unsuccessful vehicle. 

The question then is as to whether or not you take the best of 

what the industry is capable of doing in this today and you match 

that against both their technology and concerns that are being raised about some of the habitat site-specific in ANWR, and whether or not that can be dealt with and you can still meet your budget 

targets or whether or not the budget is going to come back to bite 

you in the rear end so that you can't do both of those, you know. 

And that is what I am saying. 

If this was outside the budget process, and you were just talking about terms and conditions, it would be a different debate than if 

it is going to be driven by somebody's belief, in the Senate or elsewhere, that you have got to meet these hard budget targets, and 

then pretty soon they are saying well, we can't drill it that way and 

still give you this money. 

Mr. STEVENS. I have to tell you, Congressman, and then I will 

not answer any more. I see the--

Mr. MILLER. I am assuming the best of both sides here for the 

minute. I am not asking--

Mr. STEVENS. Let me just put it this way. If I ever dreamed of 

a place which would be in a, you know, an enormous worldwide 

fishbowl, it will be the activities that take place on this land. You 

and I know that. Whoever drills this well knows t.hat they are 

going to have 24-hour-a-day cameras on them. They are going to 

have 24-hour-a-day camera on whoever works there. This is 

going-this is the cause celebre now. 

If we open this, you and I know it is the cause celebre. There will 

be no opportunity for mistakes. They can't afford mistakes. The 

reason the money is not what reflects the value that was offered 

for Prudhoe Bay, as I said, because it has already been discounted 

because these people know what they are going to face once they 
15 

try to exercise the rights we are trying to give them. This is going 

to be the model development of the oil and gas industry. You ought 

to come over to our neighbors across the Bering Straights and see 

how they drill wells and see how they build roads and see how they build pipelines, and you would see the difference. 

Mr. CALVERT. I know the Senator's time is constrained. If anyone 

on our side would like to ask any questions and then-yes, the gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Senator Stevens, I have noticed over the years that 

some of the people who proclaim the loudest their concern for poor 

and working people always never seem to want us to develop any 

of our natural resources, and yet it seems to me if we develop some 

of this oil and gas that not only would it provide jobs in Alaska but 

it would help poor and lower income people all over this country 

because they are the ones that are hurt the most if prices for oil 

and gas go out of sight. And I just wonder if you have noticed that 

same thing or what your thoughts are. 

I read an article a few months ago that said the average income 

of a Sierra Club member was $77,000 a year, the average income, 

which is about four or five times what the average income of the 

citizens I represent is. And so some of these environmental extremists seem to be wealthy enough to be insulated from the harm of 

their policies. 

I just wonder if you think that this development of ANWR could 

help the poor and working people of this country. 

Mr. STEVENS. It certainly will. And we estimate the minimum 

735,000 jobs nationally would be created by the movement to explore and develop the Arctic Plain. And I share with you the viewpoints about those who are dilettantes in terms of environmental 

protection. I used to ask them when they became before Senate 

committee in years gone by how they got to Washington, did they 

fly a jet or did they walk, how many cars did they have in their 

garage. We have too many examples of people that have private 

airplanes and their own private gas reserves who comP.lain about 

the increased consumption of gas by the United States c1tizens. 

You are right on. In our state I represent-90 percent of our peo- ple work for small businesses. And most of those small businesses 

are associated with some type of resource development, whether it 

is mining oil or gas, timber, fishing. We are peonle who are related 

as working people to large industries, and we know we need this 

one opened because of what is happening to our economy. 

85 percent of the money that we use to support schools in rural 

Alaska comes from the current income we receive from the production that is carried through the Alaska oil pipeline. That is decreasing. We are going to have to start closing schools. We are going to 

have to stop some of the programs we have for assistance to these 

people who live in these rural villages. It worries me very much. 

We will pass-even with the passage of this bill, there is going 

to be a dip in that income a long time before it goes back up again. 

There are going to be a lot of native kids that don't go to college 

because we didn't do this ten years ago. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I will simply say that I think if we could develop some of these resources that it would help, like I say, the 

middle or lower income people even in Tennessee where I am from. 
16 

And let me just ask you one other brief question. What percentage of the state of Alaska are you talking about working in here? 

Mr. STEVENS. We are 375 million acres and this a million and 

a half acres. It is about one-third of one percent of Alaska when 

you are talking about the million and a half acres. 

Mr. DUNCAN. One-third of one percent? 

Mr. STEVENS. And of that area, as I said, of the million and a 

half acres less than one-tenth of one percent of that will be touched 

by this development. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I thought you probably would have--

Mr. STEVENS. Well, a thousand acres. 

Mr. DUNCAN. I am sorry I didn't get to hear your testimony earlier, but one-third of one percent and less than what, now? 

Mr. STEVENS. 1200 acres is what they tell us will be needed out 

of-pardon me, 12,000 acres out of a million and a half will be 

needed for the actual development once they have located the place 

to start the production. · Mr. DUNCAN. All right. 

Mr. STEVENS. A very, very small area. The size of Dulles Airport in an area that is one-fifth the size of the United States. 

Mr. DUNCAN. All right, thank you very much. 

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. The gentleman from New Mexico has 

unanimousMr. RICHARDSON. Mr. Chairman, I just would ask unanimous 

consent to insert my statement in the record expressing concern 

over drilling in ANWR. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection. [Statement of Hon. Bill Richardson follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BILL RICHARDSON, A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM NEW MEXICO 

Mr. Chairman, as we meet today to discuss expansion of oil exploration in yet an- other pristine natural environment in this country, I would like to remind my colleagues of the devastation wrought by the Exxon Valdez accident in 1989. At that 

time, more than 10 million gallons of oil were dumped in the beautiful waters of 

Prince William Sound off the coast of Alaska. Although this single biggest oil disaster in our nation's history was less than 10 years a~o, we are here today to consider 

the opening up to oil exploration of yet another undisturbed natural resource. The new oil and gas development. pondered by this hearing comes on the heels 

of House passage of H.R. 70, which would stimulate new oil production in the areas of Alaska which currently sustain oil exploration and development operations. Despite this huge new mandate for production, which I supported in Committee and on the Floor, today we're being told industry wants more. Ninety percent of the Arctic coastline is already open to oil exploration or development. Is it really too ex- treme to protect 10% of this spectacUlar natural wilderness for the benefit of all 

Americans? 

The American people certainly do not believe that protection of ANWR is too ex- treme. In a nationwide survey of 1000 voters, conducted just two weeks ago, voters 

strongly opposed allowing oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge even if 

funds derived from such activity would be used to reduce the deficit. When asked 

if the government should allow oil drilling and exploration in ANWR, voters rejected 

the idea by more than three-to-one: 57 percent were op~osed and only 17 percent were in favor. Seventy percent agreed tliat protecting this area should be our first 

priority while only 20 \)ercent believe that we should use the fees from oil drilling 

to help reduce the defiCit. 

The coastal plain was part of the original wildlife range established by President 

Eisenhower in 1960. All of the original refuge was protected as wilderness by the 

Alaska Lands Act, except the coastal plain area. Even then, the House of Represent- atives voted twice to mtike it wilderness. 
17 

The Arctic Refuge is the onl:r conservation system unit in North America that protects, in an undiSturbed condition, a complete spectrum of arctic and subarctic 

ecosystems. The coastal plain is unique not only to the North Slope, but to the 

World and is the biologic81 heart of the refuge. Many biologists refer to it as the 

American Serengeti in recognition of the rich diversity of wili:llife which it supports. 

Ambassador Raymond Cllretien of Canada has written to me of his government's 

opposition to the approval of oil and gas exploration and development on the coastal 

plain. Per the Ambassador's request, I seek unanimous consent to insert his letter 

mto the record for today's hearing. Unlike Prudhoe Bay, the coastal plain is the nation's most significant polar bear 

denning habitat on land, supports up to 300,000 snow geese and the very con- centrated Porcupine caribou c8lving ground. The 1987 "1002" Report to Congress submitted with the Environmental Impact Statement concluded there would be 

major negative effects to the Porcupine caribou herd, muskox, water quality and 

quantity, subsistence, and wildlife from leasing and development of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain. 

The 1987 study of the area by the Department of Interior found that there was only a 1 in 5 chance of finding oil in the coastal plain, and a one in 100 chance 

that a Prudhoe Bay-sized field would be found there. Even if oil were found, experts estimate full production of the field would likely only provide enough oil to satisfy 

two percent of U.S. oil needs, or a total of 200 da~ worth of oil. 

What price do we put on our natural places? What price do we place on our history? What price do we place on wilderness and wild things? Certainly, our nation's 

heritage is worth more than six months of oil. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend you for bringing this issue to 

the attention of. the Committee. I realize we have different views on the protection 

of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I hope we can work together to support 

responsible oil and gas development while protecting our environment and our na- tion's natural heritage. Thank you. 

[The letter submitted may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. The gentleman from California. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator. 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. F ARR. I am very-I tend to agree with you that if indeed this 

is opened up technology and conditions will prevail in doing, sort 

of, the best management practices. You have been involved in this 

debate for a long time. You have essentially the resource. We have 

the people that are dependent on it in California. I have often said 

that oil is the drug of the industrial revolution. You are the sup- plier. We are the user. 

One of the concerns I have is that we have not done a very good job in public policy in really allowing the revenues derived at the 

Federal level to be utilized by the communities that have the adverse impact, the overdependence on automobiles, the air pollution that it causes and so on. And I am concerned we have in the Federal Government-you talked about Alaska having revenues and 

you have a pretty good program there in Alaska. The state allows 

the state revenues to get right into the pockets of people in your dividend. 

But in our conservation efforts we have created this oil-I mean, 

the Land Water Conservation Fund, we have $11.2 billion in that 

fund. We are only appropriating $50 million. My concern is if these 

revenues keep coming back into the same pot they really aren't 

reaching the environmental needs that we need to pay for. California hasn't been approving bond acts and yet we have 32 million 

people that need to recreate. We need more money to buy more 

land and to do more efforts. And I am concerned that we will not 

find a better way to get those revenues into the hands of users. 

And I wondered if you had ever thought about developing better 
18 

Federal policy to ensure that state and local governments could 

benefit from the resources derived if indeed ANWR is opened up? 

Mr. STEVENS. Well. as a matter of fact. it was at the time when 

we were thinking about trying to bring the oil pipeline-the oil 

ashore in California and put it through the Old El Paso Gas Line 

and send it to Texas so it would not have to go down and go around 

the Horn or else build a pipeline through Panama. at that time we 

had-I conducted some hearings in Los Angeles and we were looking at trying to create a fund that would be derived from the savings if that had happened. It would have been substantial savings, 

all the shipping down there and the pipeline was built and so many 

costs were incurred. We were looking at trying to find ways to assist in the area. I remember that we got the statistics on the number of plants there in the Long Beach area that were very polluting, drycleaning plants and whatnot. We were trying to create a 

fund to contribute to the area that might be impacted onshore to 

the oil that was coming from our state. It is like any other coming 

from offshore. 

I don't know why we don't do that with oil that comes in from 

offshore. We let 50 percent or more of our oil that we consume 

come in from offshore and it pays nothing toward what it costs us 

onshore. I agree with you, but we have not been able to do that, 

primarily because we do have the Superfund. We had funds that 

were created to deal with it on a national basis, albeit in a different way. 

We were looking to try and deal with it in California, obviously 

to get some support for what we wanted to do, and that was reduce 

the cost of transportation. I think that we ought to look to find 

ways where we save money from the system to do what you suggest. 

Mr. F ARR. My point is that I don't think we ought to allow this 

money to come to the Federal Government and sit here in Washington so that we can use it for deficit reduction when it can't get 

down to the need of the communities and that we ought to come 

up with a new paradigm of how money resources can be given directly as we do in duck stamp money, as we do in trust fund moneys in the oil and in the highway funds. We need to have money 

that-the process ensures that the revenues get to the communities. And we haven't devised that system very well yet at the 

Federal level. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, you know, not far off the mark I one time 

suggested we ought to take part of the money we get from tobacco 

taxes and dedicate it to the veterans hospitals which are full of 

people that had too many cigarettes during the war. You know, I 

think there is a similar thinking out there with a lot of people that 

we ought to find some way to deal with problems directly rather 

than to bring the money in here and devise ways to deal with problems generally. And I don't disagree that you should think about 

it. I don't know how we can participate in that now. We were 

knocked down in our attempt to try to help in California with regard to pollution reduction in exchange for the ability to bring our 

oil ashore there. 
19 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Senator. I think we may have time for 

one more questions. Maybe-OK, let us try to make it brief because 

I know the Senator was in a hurry. So, the gentlemen--

Mr. STEVENS. I talk too much for someoneMr. CALVERT [continuing]. Maryland and then--

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Mr. Chainnan. Good afternoon, Senator. Your testimony is striking and infonnative. I have a question about the royalty split. Understanding the royalty split on state 

land, the royalty split on Federal land at this point and the royalty 

split, which I think I am correct is 50/50 on 1002, is there any effort on your part depending on what the suit is on Federal lands 

to change the split on 1002. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, that is a very interesting question. Before we 

got statehood, revenues from Federal lands were split with western 

states 52-112 percent to the states and 37-112 percent went to the 

Reclamation Fund, 10 percent went to the Federal treasury. Since 

we were not going to have any reclamation projects, the territory 

of Alaska was granted 90 percent to pay to the territory of Alaska 

and 10 percent to the Federal treasury of any income from Federal 

lands. You have got to remember that there were none, so it was 

90 percent of nothing, right. 

Now when we got statehood, this committee put that bill that 

was part of the territorial, Federal Territorial Law, it was an addendum to the Mineral Leasing Act, really, into the Statehood Act. 

Contrary to the procedure for every other act, statehood act, the 

Federal Government required that the Alaska people vote to accept the Statehood Act. It became a compact with the Federal Government because we gave up rights that other western states had in 

order to become a state. That compact was entered into. 

One of the benefits we got was 90 percent of the revenue from 

oil and gas. Now since that time, the split has been changed. It is 

50/50. The money no longer goes into the reclamation fund. 50 percent goes into the Federal treasury. 50 percent goes to the western 

state. That is the provision that is in the bill now that is being considered for this act. Alaskans have not accepted that yet. Frankly, there never will be a court case until we some time get 

less than 90 percent. Our statehood act, which is a compact with 

the United States, says we get 90 percent of the revenues from oil 

and gas on Federal lands. The Federal Government now says we 

get 50 percent and the Mineral Leasing Act generally was changed for all western states to 50 percent. We do not believe that changed it for Alaska. The court may disagree with us. We will have to pursue that. 

But in any event, we have agreed for the purpose of this concept 

here that the leasing provisions under this bill will be 50/50, 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank y~u, Senator. 

Mr. VENTO. Thanks, Mr. Chainnan. Senator, I know you have to 

go. I don't want to keep you. I just wanted to at least chime in on 

some of the opinions and views that you expressed with regards to 

Alaska. 

I was claiming poverty with 104 million acres of land to the state 

and 44 million to the native Americans. I think it is an extraordinary amount of land. It is twice the size of my state of Min-
20 

nesota. I recognize that it gives a substantial base to the popu- lation of Alaska, and I understand the importance of Federal land 

policy. I was here in the late '70's. We worked in Alaska lands. I 

can't claim the length of service that you can with regards to working on those issues or the assignments in the Administration, but 

I am quite aware of the importance of this acreage. And, you know, we want to make the right policies with regards 

to this. I am reminded of the fact that just this week or late last 

week an announcement was made in regards to the purchase back 

of Bristol Bay leases because of the environmental concerns. So the 

fact is in the past we have made some mistakes with regard to 

this. There are values that are sometimes more important than 

leasing in terms of the fisheries and the other resources. We are 

certainly reminded of that and have a lively debate going on in the 

Pacific northwest today because of it. 

Similarly, I think Alaska has been prudent in establishing a fund 

for its revenues that come from the mineral resources, oil and gas and others, a $15 billion fund that exists today to smooth out the 

variations in income. You know, I think that obviously living in 

Alaska is a different world than most of us face in terms of state 

taxation. 

And I was interested to hear that you are embracing the Administration with regards to the OMB and its asset sales. I wonder if 

CBO is going to take all the Administration's recommendations 

with regards to dynamic scoring. I don't think it would be :prudent. And I think it is a high-risk option, incidentally, putting it mto reconciliation. I don't agree with the basic policy and I think that 

some of the environmental concerns which you have expressed and 

embraced here today would not likely be within the context of reconciliation. 

I note that today we are having a hearing. We are not even having a hearing on any legislation. We are only having a hearing on 

the discussion of the budget implications and the change. There is 

no legislation today before the committee in terms of what the pol- icy is going to be. 

I further wanted to comment about the Gwich'in and the entire 

exposure. I don't know, I suppose the fll'st one that hasn't committed any error could step forward and make the statement. I don't 

know that it would be me. I won't make a judgment, but I don't 

think there is any denying that the Gwich'in do in fact utilize the 

caribou, this Porcupine herd, as a subsistence source of income and 

food and so forth. 

And the issue here, of course, is the whole dynamic of the fauna 

and flora, not simply whether you can produce more caribou or less 

caribou. A non-migrating herd, I think, says a lot to those of us 

that claim some knowledge of biology in this process. 

So, Senator, as I said, I don't want to keep you. Your discussion 

of the fact that it is only 12,000 acres, that doesn't occupy much 

of the ocean area, but it has a big impact in terms of what gets snared in the nets. I mean, the idea of how much space is occupied here really understates what the impact of this will be. It will be 

substantial. There are any number of treaties and other agreements we have and other types of species that are impacted by it. 

I know Polar bears don't get along too well with people. There are 
21 

a small number in this area, but it is one of our only areas in 

America, in the United States that has, for instance, this species 

present. We have, obviously, agreements with it. 

So I don't know what is going to happen in the end. Like you say, it is 13 years. Maybe they will drill a well. I think the prospects 

of what is going to be discovered here have been overstated and the 

fact is that we can't get all the information. JAO couldn't get it 

from the Exxons and from British Petroleum and the many others 

that have an interest in this issue. We don't have any large scale 

example of the type of environmental safeguards that you are talking about occurring in the 12,000-acre area. Maybe that is as it is 

because no new oil fields have been opened in recent years in these 

areas, but there are many, many unknowns and at the very least 

that is why I am pursuing the position I am. 

And I think it is time to resolve it. And I am not dissuaded by 

your rather passionate and articulate defense of opening this and 

advocacy of opening it. I did want to share that with you before you 

departed. I appreciate you being here. I think it underlines the importance of this to the state of Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, I thank you very much. I don't want to prolong it either. We have land we got in the Statehood Act. Don't forget we could not select it until the Federal Government took its 

first, our land first. In 1980 we got our selections after all these 

other reservations. So if you want to look at a map that shows 

where minerals are, where oil and gas potential is, come we will 

show you the map. And the wilderness areas, all these other areas 

overlie the great mining districts, the oil and gas potential. We 

didn't get to select that as state's. The only area we selected as a 

state before all that started in 1980 was the Prudhoe Bay area. 

Other than that, I understand you, we are at disagreement. The 

great thing in our country is we can disagree. I only say that the 

result of our disagreement has been now since the oil income has 

started going down slowly but surely our state is being strangled. And it is being strangled by overregulation from the Federal Government. 

We have-we had an agreement in 1980 to get an environment 

impact statement, let Congress approve the findings of the Secretary of Interior and you can go ahead with oil and gas leasing 

in the 1002 area. Congress has reneged on its commitment. It was 

never fairly reviewed. This committee never voted on that. We have 

not been able to get a vote since the first environment impact 

statement was made following the 1980 law. 

All we are asking for is fairness. We are asking to be treated like 

Americans. That was an agreement we made. That bill just cut our 

throat as far as the number of lands, amount of lands that were 

taken from us that were ours under the Statehood Act. We had the 

right to select 103.5 million acres of vacant unappropriated, unreserved land&. After the Statehood Act passed the Federal Government reserved more than 100 million acres. Now you ask yourself 

what would the people of your state do if that happened to you. 

We have been seriously harmed, I think, by the decision that was 

made in 1980 to withdraw those lands. The only thing in that bill 

that was in our favor was that, the Jackson Amendment. They 

gave us the right to explore the 1002 area. And Congress has not 
22 

kept its word on that. This Congress has the ability now to keep 

the word the Congress gave us. That report was favorable. It was 

made three times and it should be approved by Congress. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Chairman--

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Stevens. 

Mr. VENTO [continuing]. the Senator has to leave. I would just 

say that, you know, obviously there is a difference on what the 

word was. The House twice passed legislation that designated this 

wilderness. The legislation prohibits development without the action of Congress. 

Mr. STEVENS. Well, that is the point. It didn't have the authority 

to do that. All it had the authority to do was to approve or disapprove the environment impact statement. 

Mr. CALVERT. I would like to thank the Senator for coming today and testifying. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Stevens, Senator. Mr. StevensMr. CALVERT. And we appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Senator Stevens. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If I might? 

Mr. STEVENS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. From Hawaii, I just want to say to you as one 

of the other states, a sister state to Alaska, I appreciate your sensitivity and all the work that you have done on behalf of the people in Hawaii, and we will certainly take into account what was said 

today and we will do our best. 

Mr. STEVENS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Senator. 

Now, we would like to hear from the government witnesses. The 

first panel is Mr. John Leshy, the Solicitor of the Department of 

Interior; Mr. John Shively, Commissioner of the Department of 

Natural Resources of the State of Alaska; and Mr. Delbert Rexford, 

representing the North Slope Borough. 

Now this is going a little longer than we anticipated, so in the 

interest of time I would ask that you limit your oral remarks to no 

more than five minutes, less if possible. Your entire statements will 

a.ppear in the record. We will be using the lights in front of you. When you see the yellow light you will have one minute remaining. 

Mr. Leshy. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. LESHY, SOLICITOR, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. LESHY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, members of 

the committee. I will be as brief as I can. 

The Secretary of the Interior very much wanted to be here today. 

He was unexpectedly called away by the death of a close friend. 

This is a very important issue to him and so I am here to state 

the Administration position on maintaining the integrity of the 

Arctic Wildlife Refuge. The Secretary urges this committee to follow these hearing with 

a full debate on legislation that is independent of the budget reconciliation process. We agree with the sentiments of Congressman 

Miller that the fate of the Arctic Refuge is a matter of great na-
23 

tiona! significance and should not be summarily treated by this 

Congress as just another revenue item. 

The Clinton Administration strongly supports the domestic oil 

and gas industry. We have supported efforts in the Congress to increase oil recovery in deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico through ap- propriate royalty incentives. We have supported repeal of the ban 

on exporting Alaska crude oil subject to condition in order to increase production in Alaska and prolong the life of the existing oil 

fields. We have conducted a number of extremely successful outercontinental shelf oil and gas sales and we plan to conduct more. We 

have leased more onshore oil and gas acreages annually than the 

previous administration. We have worked cooperatively with the 

industry to address ongoing problems and issues and streamline 

necessary regulatory oversight. 

Yet this Administration opposes allowing oil and gas development on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. And the Secretary 

would recommend to the President that he veto any legislation that 

would authorize it. 

Let me add in response to Senator Stevens' comments that Congress decided in 1980 by law that there should be no exploration 

or development of the Arctic Range without further action by Congress. In other words, this Administration could not lease and develop this area if it wanted to. It does not want to and it opposes 

efforts by Congress to change the current law to allow leasing exploration and development. 

The Administration believes it is in the best interests of the peo- ple and the industry to follow a balanced energy policy consisting 

of promoting exploration and development, protecting our natural 

heritage, promoting energy efficiency. So far the proponents of 

drilling have not offered to consider the refuge in the context of an 

overall national energy policy. They ask us to offer up this last protected part of the Arctic coastline, a small part of-as a small part of a plan to eliminate the deficit and balance the budget. The refuge here, the Coastal Plain, is the last protected fragment of the great Coastal Plain where America goes down to the coastal-l am sorry, to the Polar Ocean. The Refuge is the crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The Coastal Plain is the 

biological heart of the refuge. More than 85 percent of the Arctic 

Coastal Plain has already been opened and is now opened to oil 

and gas exploration and development. The story of Prudhoe Bay is well know. Less well known is the 

fact that the entire area west of Prudhoe Bay, all the way to Bering Sea, is also open for oil development. The oil companies could 

go west from Prudhoe Bay under existing law. Indeed, there is 

growing interest on the part of some companies to go west, but 

they are clamoring to go east, straight into this last protected fragment of the Arctic Slope. They are now asking for the right to invade this last Arctic sanctuary for what under the most optimistic 

estimates would be the equivalent of about six months of national 

oil consumption. 

Recognition of the unique wilderness character of the refuge goes 

back a long way. Senator Stevens spoke of the origins. President 

Eisenhower's Secretary of the Interior first preserved the Arctic 

Refuge by order and called it one of the most magnificent wildlife 
24 

and wilderness areas in North America, a wilderness experience 

that could not be duplicated elsewhere. 

In 1978 Cecil Andrus pointed out that minerals are finite. Production in this area inevitably means changes where impacts will 

be measured in geologic time in order to gain marginal benefits 

that may last a few years. He opposed oil and gas development of 

the refuge. 

Secretary Babbitt spent time there in 1993 and his experience there convinced him more than ever that the area should not be 

open to exploration and development. 

It is easy to see why Americans want this special place protected. 

It is harder to understand why we should want to develop it. The 

proposal to develop oil on the refuge is most often justified on national security grounds, but no single oil discovery, even a very 

large one, can fundamentally alter our nation's oil security situation. We are much better off, as we have done in the past, to promote energy efficiency and other mechanisms than to pursue additions to domestic supply at such a cost to the environment as here. 

I should also point out that the revenue estimates in receipts under this bill, we have great concern that they are simply wishful 

thinking. As was discussed in the colloquy with Senator Stevens, 

the state of Alaska is actually now in court arguing that Congress has no power to change the 90/10 revenue split. They had filed the 

lawsuit a couple of years ago. We are defending that lawsuit. If 

they win that lawsuit and in fact it is beyond Congress' power to 

change the revenue split, then the revenue estimates from opening 

up the oil and gas-from opening up the refuge will be dramatically reduced because the Federal treasury will only get 10 percent, 

not 50 percent. World oil prices, of course, are really at a nearly all-time low, 

lower than they were in real dollars than in 1973. And this obviously also affects the revenue estimates and Congress needs to take 

that into account. 

I see my time is up. I will be happy to answer questions. Let me 

just conclude briefly by saying that the Secretary strongly urges 

the Congress to reconsider its rush to lease the Coastal Plain of the 

refuge. The Secretary believes strongly that opening this refuge to 

oil drilling is the equivalent of offering Yellowstone National Park 

for geothermal leasing or calling for bids to construct hydropower 

dams in the Grand Canyon. It is that important. We can surely find a better way to produce energy and conserve our national heritage. Thank you very much. 

[Statement of Bruce Babbitt may be found at end of hearing.] Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Leshy. Mr. John Shively, Commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources with the State of 

Alaska. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN SHIVELY, COMMISSIONER, 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. SHIVELY. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Shively. I am the 

Commissioner of Natural Resources, and I am here today on behalf 

of Governor Tony Knowles. Thank you for submitting the written 

testimony for the record. 
25 

I think a couple things on introduction. Governor Knowles is a 

Democrat. Three out of the last four governors of the state of Alaska have been Democrats. All three of those governors have sup- ported the opening of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for poten- tial exploration, and development, so in Alaska at least this is a 

bipartisan issue. It is not a partisan issue. 

I would also like to say in opening that some people, I think, 

have tried to make this an issue of oil versus caribou, you know. 

It can-and I will have to tell you if we believed in Alaska, particularly this administration, that if the choice were oil or caribou, we 

would choose the caribou. We just do not believe that that is the 

choice here. We believe that you can have responsible development 

at ANWR and you can protect the caribou herd. And we think our 

experience at Prudhoe Bay shows that. 

Now why are we here debating this? We are debating it because 

although, as the Secretary has represented and pointed out, a great deal of the Arctic's coast is open to oil and gas leasing, the biggest 

part of it, what is known as the National Petroleum Reserve, is 

controlled, I believe at this point, by the Secretary. They have held 

no lease sales recently and the last lease sale they held nobody showed up for because people are concerned that there really is not 

potential there. 

The reason that we are here debating this is because after Congress authorized some minimal seismic exploration of the 1002 

area it was clear that there were some major geological structures 

there that show the potential for large Prudhoe Bay type oil fields. 

And that is why the interest in ANWR. And of course nobody 

knows. We could sit here and debate for the next 30 weeks how 

much oil the U.S. Geological Survey thinks and how much BLM 

and how much I think, but nobody knows until it is drilled. And 

so what we are asking for at this point is the right to have it leased 

to go in and explore. Now exploration will take place in the wintertime. It will have 

really no environmental damage and certainly will not interfere 

with the calving which takes place for three weeks in the spring. 

If there is no oil, then there is really no debate about the Coastal 

Plain because people will go away. If there is oil, we are convinced 

that it does have a national impact, it does help reduce our reliance 

on foreign oil, which has now grown to over 50 percent. At the 

time-I might point out at the time of the embargo in 1973 we 

were at 36 percent and we know what the embargo did to our economy then, so we can imagine what one will do now. 

Alaska has contributed about 25 percent of the nation's domestic 

oil supply since 1977. Our percentage has remained about the 

same, but the national production of oil has gone down. And that 

is the reason we are more reliant on foreign oil right now. 

The other, I think, major P:U!>!i~ policy reason that this committee 

should consider in opening ANWR is we have a huge national asset 

in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. That asset can carry over 2 million 

barrels of oil a day. This year it will average about 1,050,000 barrels a day-1,500,000 barrels a day, and that is going to decline 

over the years. So there is room for that oil. And if indeed Prudhoe 

Bay declines at faster rates than people are presently predicting, 

the actual operation of that pipeline could be in jeopardy. 
26 

We also think that the development of ANWR has potential economicjositive aspects for the whole nation's economy. In a study 

we ha done in 1990, we showed that since 1980 over $22 billion 

has been spent on the development of North Slope. And remember, 

after 1980 is after the pipelme and after the development of the 

initial oil field. That $22 billion was spent at every state in the 

union. So we are not just talking about Alaska here. We are talking about economic impacts nationwide. 

We are firmly convinced in Alaska that this resource, if it exists, 

can be developed in an environmentally responsible manner. If it 

couldn't, we wouldn't want to develop it. So I think the issue is ripe 

for a decision by Congress and we support our Congressional delegation in their desire to see the 1002 are opened for exploration and development if there is any oil. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. 

[Submited material from Governor Tony Knowles may be found 

at end of hearing.] [Pamphlet on ANWR was placed in the hearing files of the committee.] 

[Statement of John Shively may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Shively. Next, Mr. Delbert Rexford 

representing the North Slope Borough. 

STATEMENT OF DELBERT REXFORD, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH 

Mr. REXFORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my 

name is Delbert Rexford, Special Assistant to George N. 

Ahmaogak, Sr., Mayor of the North Slope Borough in the State of 

Alaska. I come before your committee today in support of legisla- tion to open up the Coastal Plains of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge to oil and gas exploration and development. I would like to 

take a few minutes just to inform you and share with you my home, the North Slope Borough. The North Slope Borough encompasses 89,000 square miles of 

land mass from the Canadian border to the Chukchi Sea to the 

west. There are 6,500 residents, a large majority being Inupiat just like me. Our borough is the largest municipality in this country, if 

not in the world. It is made up of mountains, rivers, permafrost covered tundra and 2,600 miles of Arctic coastline. 

Again, a large majority of the residents of the North Slope are 

Inupiat Eskimo. Out of the 6,500 I estimate that 85 percent are 

Inupiat. Like myself, Inupiat Eskimos live in the North Slope Borough. Like our forefathers and our ancestors who lived on the land 

for thousands of years in what was termed and still is termed a 

harsh, barren, flat, cold desolate land. But that land is our home 

and it has been our home for centuries. Like most of my people, 

I am a subsistence hunter. I whale. I hunt seals, waterfowl, caribou, fish throu~h the ice in the rivers and the lakes to help supplement the nutntional needs of my family and my extended family members. I am passing on the tradition of subsistence hunting and 

living off the land to my children and my grandson. The tradition 

of subsistence activities is important to us and it will always be. 

lnupiat people have no desire to harm the environment, the ecology, the habitat of the wildlife that they depend on that sustains 

their culture. 
27 

Some people state that the Coastal Plains of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge are pristine. This is not so in some cases. Congress 

is aware that the military sites, the DEW Line Early Warning 

sites, were constructed during the Cold War era. These facilities 

still exist within the ANWR region. 

The Coastal Plain is also the subsistence traditional hunting 

grounds of the Kaktovik Inupiat people. My great uncle, Herman 

Rexford, and my uncles Fenton and Eddie still live off the land. 

They have a right to have a voice in this matter as the opportunities for economic growth, jobs for their people and a brighter future 

are in question. And they should be represented here. 

Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation shareholders supported the development and exploration of oil and gas in ANWR through a resolution overwhelmingly without objections. The benefits of oil and gas 

to the borough are numerous, just to begin: basic life, health and 

safety services, sanitation delivery, fire and police protection, 

search and rescue operations in a country with 89,000 square miles 

to save a single life is tremendous, also the educational facilities, 

the infrastructures that have been constructed, millions of dollars 

worth of facilities to educate our children, our Inupiat children, our 

future. They need the support of Congress as we embark on the future of our people. 

Through the base, our tax revenue base, we receive no royalties 

and therefore by taxing oil and gas properties we are most fortunate to have a revenue base to provide and improve the quality of 

life to over 6,500 of our residents. 

Oil development can coexist with the wildlife, with the environment and the habitats. This is proven from the early 1970's when 

I had an opportunity to work on the Trans-Alaska pipeline. I had 

an opportunity to work in the Prudhoe Bay oil field and then in 

the 1980's when the North Slope Borough committed their efforts 

to improve technology and to centrally locate infrastructures so 

that the footprint technology would be improved. And now the Endicott project. That is a new technology that we can look forward 

to to minimize any environmental, ecological or habitat impacts, 

potential impacts. 

A13 Inupiat we have been the stewards of the land for centuries 

and we feel that our land management regulations in the North 

Slope Borough Municipal Code adequately address any environmental, ecological and habitat concerns. We are involved in the 

day-to-day implementation of policies, of permitting and working 

with the oil and gas industry to assure that residents and their 

lifestyle are not adversely impacted. We need prompt ANWR exploration and leasing. It is in the best interest of not only the North 

Slope Borough as a home-rule government providing basic life, 

health and safety services to its constituency, but also to the people 

of the state of Alaska and the citizens of the United States. 

The other issue that I would like to strongly encourage Congress 

to consider is Impact Aid to the impacted community. Kaktovik 

Inupiat Corporation and the residents of Kaktovik number in 250 

people. If and when development and exploration occurs, there will 

be social impacts. We encourage that Impact Aid be provided to 

those impacted communities similar to the NPRA impact funds 
28 

that were appropriated to the communities of Atkasuk, Nuiqsut, 

Barrow and Wainwright under the Sheffield Administration. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing I would like to conclude my remarks 

on behalf of the people of the North Slope. I appreciate the oppor- tunity to present this testimony to your committee. As the Mayor's 

Special Assistant, I can state decisively that the vast majority of 

people of the North Slope enthusiastically support the presence of 

the oil industry on our lands. 

Opening the small, 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of ANWR to oil 

and gas leasing and exploration is the right thing to do. This conclusion is based on both analysis and 25 years of experience at 

Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope oil fields. As I discussed about, 

the potential resources of ANWR's Coastal Plain are of critical importance to the future of current North Slope Borough residents, 

the future of their children and the future of generations yet to 

come. 

On behalf of Mayor Ahmaogak and all the residents of the North 

Slope, I implore this Congress to make the only logical, rational 

and reasonable decision it can on this issue. Vote to open the 

Coastal Plain of ANWR to environmentally sound and properly regulated oil and gas leasing exploration and development. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to address this 

committee. Thank you very much. 

[Statements of Mayor George Ahmaogak and Delbert Rexford 

may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much, Mr. Rexford. I appreciate 

your testimony. 

Mr. Leshy, have you ever been to ANWR or the Coastal Plain? 

Mr. REXFORD. Yes, I have on a number of occasions. 

Mr. CALVERT. I was asking--excuse me, the question was to Mr. 

Leshy. 

Mr. REXFORD. I thought I heard Mr. Rexford. Excuse me. 

Mr. LEsHY. Mr. Chairman, no, I have not. The Secretary has 

been there, spent a few days there a couple of years ago. 

Mr. CALVERT. Is oil developmentpresently taking place in any of 

our natural-excuse me, National Wildlife Refuges? 

Mr. LESHY. Excuse me, I will have to consult on it. Yes, I think 

there is some limited oil development in the Kenai Refuge south of 

Anchorage. 

Mr. CALVERT. If, hypothetically, ANWR development was enacted 

into law, would the Department cooperate by offering the appro- priate area for leasing? 

Mr. LESHY. If we were directed to do so, we would certainly comply with the will of Congress and carry out the law. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Rexford, have the residents of the 

North Slope Borough always supported oil development? 

Mr. REXFORD. No, you are looking at the strongest opposer of oil 

and gas development. During my younger days I was pretty radical 

and opposed all oil and gas development. But I have had opportunity to actually witness the caretakership and the great responsibility oil and gas industry has taken upon themselves to be responsible to sound oil and gas development in Alaska. 

Mr. CALVERT. As part of your job for the North Slope government, I understand you visit most of the North Slope villages 
29 

monthly. That is a lot of territory to cover. Can you give the committee an idea of the level of support, as you mentioned in your testimony, but again, you mentioned it was almost unanimous, is that 

the case? 

Mr. REXFORD. Yes, this is the case. The residents of the North 

Slope Borough support oil and gas exploration and development 

overwhelmingly. When you sit down to speak with our Inupiat peo- ple and non-Inupiat people, they are in support because they know 

that without ANWR the infrastructures in place to provide basic 

life, health and safety services are in jeopardy. The millions of dollars worth of infrastructures that are taken for granted, I feel, by 

our fellow citizens in the Lower 48 would be in jeopardy due to the 

harsh climate and the maintenance and operating costs. And so we 

do need ANWR as another tax revenue base to make sure and assure our citizens the proper care and maintenance of those infrastructures. 

Mr. CALVERT. I understand. Mr. Shively, is it fair to say that the 

issue of development in ANWR, and you mentioned this, again, in 

your testimony, is pretty much a non-partisan issue in Alaska 

throughout the territory out there? 

Mr. SHIVELY. Mr. Chairman, yes, as I mentioned three Democratic governors have supported it. The previous governor, who at 

one time was a Republican, supported it. Our-yesterday in front 

of the Senate the President of the State Senate, who is a Repub- lican, was testifying with me and she supports it. So yes, it has 

been a bipartisan issue in the state. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much. Mr. Miller. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank ;you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leshy, John, for 

you. Your testimony rmses a couple issues. First of all, let me go 

to the issue of the split with the 90/10, the Statehood Act. That is 

currently being litigated, you point out? 

Mr. LESHY. Yes, the state of Alaska filed under the Hickle Administration, I think, a $29 billion lawsuit against the Federal Government raising all sorts of claims. One of them concerns the power of Congress to change the revenue split. 

Mr. MILLER. As I understand it, the-if they are successful it will 

make little difference what this bill would say Ol' what they say they will accept or not accept. It will be governed by that and peo- ple in Alaska. The government would have the standing to seek enforcement if they get a ruling in their favor in that case, is that 

not correct? 

Mr. LESHY. That is my understanding too. In other words, the 

legal issue being pursued there is does Congress simply have the 

power to alter the arrangement of the Statehood Act. And if Congress-if the court agrees with the state and says that Congress 

does not have the power, then even though Congress would enact 

a piece of legislation here that says it is a 50/50 split in ANWR, 

if Congress doesn't have the power to do that the courts say, then 

that arrangement, that 50/50 arrangement would be void and you would go back to the 90/10 arrangement. 

Mr. MILLER. On the-you know, we were talking earlier about 

the comparisons with Prudhoe Bay and the 1002 report that was 

done earlier in anticipation of this issue and then again what we 

have learned since that as the Department and others and the 
30 

state have continued to monitor some of the concerns in this area. 

I don't know if you can do it this morning, but I would like to be 

able to ask you for the record if I can, for you to submit on, you 

know, sort of what are the new concerns that have been raised. 

As I have looked at some of the information that was done independently, again, this question of the core calving area and what 

the caribou in fact really are doing both in and outside of the core 

calving area, where they are going now, I think we know more 

than when that was originally drawn in the 1002 report. And also the question is being raised about the quantity of water 

and whether or not it is in fact available. I think there is popular belief that a lot of this would be done through ice roads and pads would be done in the winter and all that. And the question is are 

there water resources to support that or are we in a position asagain as I look at some of the information, it suggests almost that 

you would have to de-water some of the rivers to create the roads 

that would be necessary. 

Now maybe some of that is answered by helicopters and the rest, 

but again, there is some assumptions what we learned in ANWR 

and how you can do this with little, you know, very little impact if you do it at certain times of the year using those water resources. 

And those were an issue in Prudhoe and apparently may be more 

of an issue here because there is not a clear match between available water resources and the infrastructure needs. 

So if I could ask that you might submit what concerns have been 

raised along those lines, I would appreciate it. 

Mr. Shively, let me ask you a question here on the calving area. 

The governors approach is what on that issue, on the core calving 

area, the migration paths of the caribou? You mentioned this isn't 

oil versus caribou. And hopefully that issue can be resolved, but it 

seems to me there needs to be some stipulations. Mr. SHIVELY. Well, of course we have stipulations relating to 

wildlife management as part of our permitting process. And I think 

that all of this would probably be largely a Department of Interior 

permitting process. We have often shared with them as we--for instance, on OCS sales-what we think is correct. 

In terms of the core calving area, one of the problems is even our 

biologists, as stated in the most recent piece of information I have 

from them, say that you can't really precisely defme what the core 

calving area is. This is some discussion about even if you define the 

core calving area how often and what percentage of the caribou use 

it. So it is not the kind of or sort of static area that one would hope for. And we have now, I think, 17 or 18 years worth of data on 

that. We are reviewing that. But I think the main thing is that iflet us take the worse case situation. If indeed as a result of eventual development there were a decline in calving, you could deal 

with that by closing down a substantial part if not all of the development during the three week period that was necessary. 

So I think there are lots of opportunities to manage that and the 

governor is comfortable with that. 

Mr. MILLER. The core calving area isn't as speculative as you 

suggest it is. I mean, those 18, 19 years we have done the overlays. 

We have done the patterns and you start to see a substantial area 

that is involved in the core calving area, not substantial in terms 
31 

of the slope, but where you are going to get a high density, high probability that this activity is going to take on. And again, that 

goes to the people's confidence about what you can and cannot do. 

And it may be under the rules of the Senate that none of this can 

be set forth in the legislation, so, you know, you are asking people 

to fly blind, and I think people have to know what they would anticipate if they were to vote for this bill we could do and not do. 

Mr. SHIVELY. I think under existing law, both state and Federal, 

there is a tremendous amount you can do. I mean, I am not sure 

that Congress needs to set new additional requirements. Certainly this Secretary--

Mr. MILLER. Let us suggest that Prudhoe Bay was developed in 

a much different regulatory mood than the Congress is in today and maybe the American people. So there may be a lot you can do. 

Whether or not that would be done or not would suggest something 

other than that. 

Mr. SHIVELY. I think all you need to do is look at some of the 

stipulations that we are putting on in terms of our OCS and onland lease sales and you will see that we are still very serious 

about the kind of.--

Mr. MILLER. Well, I am out of time and I don't want to get-but 

if I might, Mr. Chairman, I am going to--I would like to submit 

some questions to you as I have asked Mr. Leahy. 

And I just might ask Mr. Rexford one question. Has the Borough 

changed its position on offshore leasing and exploration and development? Axe you in favor or opposed to that or where are you now? 

Historically you have been opposed to that. 

Mr. REXFORD. The North Slope Borough historically has opposed all offshore development where the migratory path of bowhead are 

jeopardized. However, we do support nearshore development. 

Mr. MILLER. OK, thank you for your confidence in the industry in relationship to their distance from the shore. 

Mr. REXFORD. The dynamics of the Arctic Ice Ocean are a ques- tion that need to be proven by the oil and gas industry. 

Mr. MILLER. OK. 

Mr. REXFORD. That is a lot of pressure to study and measure. 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Cooley. 

Mr. COOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leahy, our information shows here in what we have been provided that the USGS ge- ologists in 1987 estimated there could be from 3.2 to 9.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil in the Coastal Plain with an estimate that 

chance of about 46 percent finding if we did some drilling. No additional tests have been done on the 1002, yet the USGS now is 

working on a report which substantially downgrades the estimated 

reserves. How do you downgrade the estimated reserves when you 

haven't done anything since the time when you did do some reserve 

checking? 

Mr. LESHY. I think, Mr. Chairman-Congressman Cooley, I think 

what happened here is the USGS went back and looked at the underlying strata under the Coastal Plain. And if you can look at the 

map here over on the right, that actually doesn't show the Brooks 

Range, the mountain range that comes through here, but the 

Brooks Range actually sort of pinches off toward the Axctic Ocean 
32 

and the Coastal Plain gets narrower as you go further east into the 

1002 area. And I believe, and I am speaking as a lay person and 

I would be happy to supply you with more detailed information 

from the USGS, they simply determined the oil traps, et cetera, because of the underlying geology, would produce less oil than they 

had previously thought. But I am happy to supply more information on that. 

And I might state for the record, Mr. Chairman, in response to 

Congressman Miller's question, we would be happy to supply the 

updated information he wants. What we have done with both the 

USGS and BLM and the Fish and Wildlife Service have all been 

looking at the impact assessments that were done in the Department in 1987 and the other studies and information gathering and 

have been updating that. We should have at least the bulk of it 

available in a couple of weeks and we will make that available to 

members of the committee. 

Mr. COOLEY. Well, you haven't done any testing. This is just an 

"estimate" by what you think may or may not be there, so I guess 

the position of the Department is you would rather seal the area 

off than drill a well and find out if there is anything there? 

Mr. LESHY. There was no, as I understand it, there was no testing, further testing wells for example, in the 1002 area. But there 

has, of course, been a lot of activity up on the North Slope in general since 1987. There are new wells onshore, outside of the 1002 

area. There are new wells offshore and they have taken the new 

information from those wells, put them back with the data they already had and reanalyzed it. 

And by the way, let me emphasize the USGS does this all the1 mean periodically. This is not something that they have never 

done before. They periodically keep current their resource and reserve estimates for oil and gas throughout the United States. And 

this was part of their periodic updating. 

Mr. COOLEY. Except that it apparently hasn't been done in this 

area since '87, is that correct? 

Mr. LESHY. Right, but I will have to check, but I don't think that 

is really different from their past practice. 

Mr. COOLEY. So a periodical, eight, ten years down the road? One 

other thing as we have had a lot of discussions, the two of us 

hereMr. LESHY. Right. 

Mr. COOLEY [continuing]. over the recent days. And I am very curious for my own information and for the record. Before you came 

to the Department of Interior, where were you, sir? 

Mr. LESHY. I was-immediately before I came into the Department of the Interior-! was working on the staff of this committee 

for the chairman. Prior to that I was on leave at that point from 

a teaching position at Arizona State University out in Tempe, right 

outside of Phoenix. I had been there for 12 years, the previous 12 

years. And before that I worked in the Department of the Interior 

for a period of years. 

Mr. COOLEY. So you were at Department of Interior, teaching, 

then on staff and here? 

Mr. LESHY. Right. I can go back further if you would like. 
33 

Mr. COOLEY. No, no, that is good. I was just curious. I am trying 

to understand your philosophy as we go through this process. We 

have had a lot of interchange here in the last several weeks, needless to say. I understand from what we have been able to read in the information sent to us that there has been virtually no adverse impact 

on Coastal Plains environmentally to wildlife or exploration activities if they are done in the winter months. Is that what your Department has determined as well? 

Mr. LEsHY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Cooley, let me address 

that. I am happy to have the opportunity because there has been 

a lot of talk here this morning so far about the impacts of past development and what that might tell us about the proposed development in the 1002 area. First of all, the Prudhoe Bay area, of 

course, to the west of this area has been developed substantially 

over the last 20 years, and there has been a good deal of data gathered from that area. The fundamental question is can the impacts 

as determined in that area be translated into similar impacts if the 

1002 area were developed. 

For one thing, there has been talk here about the caribou herd. 

It is a different caribou herd around Prudhoe Bay. It is much 

smaller herd and it has a much wider area to roam in. And therefore, the biologists from the Fish and Wildlife Service who have 

looked at this issue think it is not readily translatable. What has 

happened to the Central Arctic Herd may not tell us much about 

what happens to the Porcupine Herd, which is a much larger herd. 

The Coastal Plain, as I said before, pinches in and that area is 

much smaller. We do know a good deal about the calving areas. We 

do know that and fully illustrate it in the 1987 studies that were 

done during the Reagan Administration. We are in the process of, 

as I mentioned, updating those studies. And they show that the impacts are certainly potentially very significant on the caribou herd. 

Let me also mention there has been discussion here of the explo- ration issue and whether or not exploration would have minimal 

impact, particularly under modem conditions of doing it through ice roads and the like. Again, I would make two points here. Number one, ice roads, et cetera, depends upon freshwater in the vicinity, and it is not clear there is enough freshwater in the 1002 area 

to sustain that kind of exploration. And number two and more important, the proposal is to lease for exploration and development so 

that even if exploration is determined to have relatively minimal 

impacts, the development that would follow from discoveries would 

have much different impacts. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. 

Mr. CooLEY. Well, let me finish this up, Mr. Chairman. Just 

oneMr. CALVERT. In the interest of time, we are running behind here 

a little bit. 

Mr. COOLEY. One second. May 15 to June 1, according to the 

publication, is the calving period. So you see n~is there any credence in what we have been talking about that if we were to explore this area during the winter months, being November through 

maybe February, that we would not impact the calving process? Is 

that not true? Are your biologists on the same fact? 
34 

Mr. LESHY. Again, it depends upon whether you could do exploration only by ice roads where there is enough water in the vicinity 

or whether you have to do it at other times of the year. And number two, if development follows exploration, then you would certainly get into the calving period and have the disruption that the 

biologists fear. 

Mr. CooLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, Mr. Leshy, Secretary, they have discussed only 

a small amount of the area; a footprint would be very small. How 

would you describe that 12,500 acre footprint? 

Mr. LESHY. Well, I suppose the comments, understanding a footprint is a confined area. These development fields basically are spider webs of pipelines, ancillary facilities, roads and that sort of 

thing. So while the on the ground-while the impact of those facilities may only be felt directly on 12,000 acres, the actual area of development could encompass a much larger area. 

Mr. VENTO. And that doesn't occupy very much of the ocean either, but it affects the fish a lot. Please describe the temporary 

moratorium that is currently in place. Do you share-you noticed 

the spirited reaction between myself and the Senior Senator. 

Mr. LEsHY. That is right. I was here, as you were, in 1980, '79 

and '80 when this issue was being debated. And as I recall, and you 

would remember better than I, the House voted to put-twice voted 

to put the 1002 area in wilderness, formally designated wilderness. 

The Senate would not go along with it. The compromise was that 

there would be no development unless Congress at some point in 

the future opened it up. So the status quo legally is that there is 

no exploration or development prohibited-! am sorry, there is no 

exploration or development allowed in the 1002 area. And it will 

remain that way forever unless Congress gives us a different direction. 

Mr. VENTO. There is a prohibition in the law. 

Mr. LEsHY. Exactly. I can read it if you would like. 

Mr. VENTO. No, it is not necessary. I would just direct my colleagues to it. 

You know, one of the things that, Mr. Shively, you commented 

on is that if there was a problem with regards to caribou, that you 

obviously wouldn't be in favor of this. The new Alaska Department 

of Fish and Game Information Impacts To Caribou said that they 

are significant. It is already well documented that the development 

of Prudhoe Bay displaced caribou and disrupted their movements. 

This is from your Fish and Game Department. 

Calving within the Prudhoe field had already largely ceased by 

the time oil first began flowing south. Alaska Department of Fish 

and Game biologists reported in a 1994 study that the Central Arctic Herd in the Kuparuk oil fields had a declining growth rate due 

to low calf production. Oil field development caused displacement 

of female caribou and their calves during the calving period and 

during insect relief. 

In a study currently in press, scientists concluded that the longterm displacement is occurring elsewhere, even in the new 

Kuparuk and Milne Point oil fields. As the Kuparuk and Milne 
35 

Point fields became more heavily developed, caribou used them less 

and less. 

The International Porcupine Caribou Board, of course, published 

sensitive habitat reports in 1993 which concluded there is no alternative to the sensitive habitats in the Coastal Plain used for 

calving and post calving by the herd. These are the International 

Porcupine Caribou Board, the Alaska Game and Fish Department, 

you know. 

I know it is erratic. I mean, the Porcupine Caribou don't always 

even go to the North Slope, this area we are talking about right 

now. But notwithstanding that, you suggested in your comments if 

there was any conflict. I would say that there are some pretty serious questions here. 

Mr. SHIVELY. Well, what I said was, I think, is if there is a choice 

between caribou and oil, we would choose caribou. We do not believe that choice. And the report I think you were just reading from 

concludes caribou and oil development need not be mutually exclusive, but we are unlikely to adequately protect the Coastal Plain 

habitat of the Porcupine Herd unless we fully recognize and acknowledge its importance to the caribou. 

We agree with that. That is why we have been spending a lot of 

money of the Federal Government looking at these issues. I mean, 

we want to minimize the impact. And I have never-! didn't mean 

to maintain that there would be no impact, but our experience is 

that the caribou adjust to development, that herds continue to 

grow. You can debate why caribou herds go up and down. They go 

up and down now, the Western Arctic Caribou Herd is right now, 

which is the largest caribou herd, is having some problems with declining. Some people think because it is too large for its range. It 

is a thing thatMr. VENTO. What some people think and what subjective information I might have is probably very interesting, but the thing is 

I am quoting from the study talking about the effects due to the 

oil development that is occurring there. This is from your own 

Game and Fish Department. 

Mr. SHIVELY. As am I. And if they felt that they should shut 

down or change some of the operations, they would recommend 

that. They have not recommended that. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, how many full-time personnel do they have at 

the Prudhoe Bay site? 

Mr. SHIVELY. Full time at the Prudhoe Bay site? I don't think 

they have any. 

Mr. VENTO. They don't have any. Well, what is the compliment 

in terms of the careful monitoring that goes on there from Fish and 

Wildlife? 

Mr. SHIVELY. I don't-! can get you those figures. I don't know, 

but the Fish and Game Department has a number of biologists that 

do a wide variety of.--

Mr. VENTO. How about the Department of Environmental-the 

DEC? 

Mr. SHIVELY. The DEC, I think, has one person that goes up and 

back to the North Slore and two or three people that work all 

along the pipeline on oi issues. 
36 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it isn't much. I mean, considering the nature 

and the importance of this, it doesn't seem like a very significant 

contribution of people. 

Mr. SHIVELY. Well, that is--

Mr. VENTO. My time is limited. Mr. Rexford, what is the impact 

in terms of access to the general public to Prudhoe Bay today, do 

you know? 

Mr. RExFORD. Would you rephrase that? 

Mr. VENTO. What is the access of individuals to the Prudhoe Bay 

area today? 

Mr. RExFoRD. The-are you referring to access to--

Mr. VENTO. Yeah, people being able to go onto the lands where 

these oil fields are. 

Mr. REXFORD. The Prudhoe Bay area is an industrial area, and 

so due to the possible risks of danger by subsistence hunting or 

high power rifle usage, it is-there is limitations in that respect. 

Is that what you are seeking? 

Mr. VENTO. There are limitations. Well, I was seeking an answer. I· think for the general public there is no access. For subsistence you are telling us there are limitations. And of course that 

would be true of this area as well, is that correct? 

Mr. RExFoRD. Let me answer the first part of your question first, 

Congressman Vento. The Delta Highway was recently opened up to 

the general public all the way up to Prudhoe Bay. And so that is 

an access road. However within the industrial complex and the infrastructure of the oil and gas industry, there are limitations. Bus 

tours are provided. 

Now what was the second portion of your question? Mr. VENTO. Well, now I think that you are doing fine in your bus 

tours if you want to go. I know they will fly us around if we go 

up, the oil companies will, but the general public and others are 

very limited in terms of these areas. Even though they don't occupy 

any space, just try walking on it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Vento. Ms. Chenoweth. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Leshy, it is, as 

you know from having been a staffer for Congressman Miller, how 

important it is that the information we receive from you is entirely 

accurate. Now Chairman Calvert asked you a very interesting question, which was is oil development presently taking place on 

any of our National Wildlife Refuges. You indicated there may be 

one. Would you check with your legal counsel again, because the 

committee did not get an accurate answer on that. 

Mr. LESHY. I think I can elaborate, actually, without checking 

with my legal counsel. The development I referred to was in Alaska, the Kenai, which actually, I think, was first developed in the 

early or mid 1950's before, incidentally, Congress changed the law 

to say that wildlife-that mineral development in wildlife refuges 

could only take place when it was determined to be compatible 

with the wildlife purpose of the refuge. I think there may be some 

limited oil and gas development in the Lower 48, either old pre- that change in the law or occasional I know the Fish and Wildlife 

Service leases oil and gas in refuges where there is drainage from 

outside, in other words that the only way you can protect the Fed-
37 

eral treasury from having people suck the oil out from under the 

refuges to drill and produce offsetting wells in--

Ms. CHENOWETH. That is in Louisiana and a couple in the midwest. 

Mr. LESHY. Yes, I think those are drainage situations. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. You stated, and your map shows, that all the 

area west of Prudhoe Bay is open for leasing. Just-and you talked 

about the data that was retrieved under the Reagan Administration, but just how much is presently leased and how many acres 

is development taking place on now? 

Mr. LESHY. I would have to furnish you figures after the hearing. 

I am sorry. I don't have that at my imgertips. The area, if you look 

at the map here, the area immediately to the west of the 1002 area 

where Prudhoe Bay is is largely state land and leased and developed under state authority. There is also some native land there. 

Then the big chunk, the National Petroleum Reserve, is administered by the Bureau of Land Management. And as was previously 

mentioned here, there have been several lease sales in the Pet 

Four, so called Pet Four area. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I think your counsel knows that answer. If we 

could just bend our time, could you please for the record check with 

him and let us know for the record. 

Mr. LEsHY. Yes. So I can understand, you want the acres leased 

in the area west of the Arctic Range? 

Ms. CHENOWETH. That there-in fact there isMr. LESHY. On state and Federal land, all land? I mean, I am 

not sure we will have actually the state figures. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. On Federal land. In fact, there is very little 

leasing going on and very, very little development if any, right? 

Mr. LEsHY. Well, as was mentioned here earlier, in the past the 

oil industry has not been all that interested in going into Pet Four. 

We have had some interesting discussions quite recently, actually, 

with a couple of companies who are interested in moving into that 

area because of some newly emerging geologic data. So the picture there may be beginning to change somewhat. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I think that is more accurate. Mr. Leahy, you stated on page 2 of your testimony that so far the proponents of 

drilling have not offered to consider the Arctic Nat10nal Wildlife 

Refuge System in the context of an overall national energy policy encompassing a review of alternative energy resources and the 

I>rospect for conservation. Can you state for me what the National 

Energy Policy is? 

Mr. LEsHY. Well, I am a little bit out of my expertise here since 

the National Energy Policy is-the current Administration is essentially done over at the Department of Energy. I know they have 

sent up a number of proposals for various things like the continuing programs to promote energy efficiency and that sort of thing. 

And I think, as I recall, a year or so ago put out a national energy 

strategy, but I am happy to get a hold of that and send that to you. 

Ms CHENOWETH. Let me just ask you, you were here in 1978, 

weren't you? Mr. LEsHY. Yes. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. OK, and that was in the Carter Administration 

and a law called the Public Utility Regulatory Policy Act was 
38 

passed then. And in the debate and so forth that created-and the 

action that created this law, it was pretty well stated that it is in 

the national interest to become energy independent, didn't it? 

And in fact, in two United States Supreme Court cases that 

were-came out of this particular law M£ssissippi v. The Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission, decided in 1980 by the Supreme 

Court, American Electric Producers v. The Federal Energy Regu- latory Commission, I think it was 1981, United States Supreme 

Court stated it is in the national public interest, which is rare for 

the Supreme Court to do. It is in the national public interest that 

this nation be energy independent. And, you know, when that law in 1978 was passed we were 40 

percent dependent on foreign oil. And today we are 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. And I think the Supreme Court and this 

body has already stated what the energy policy is. 

And I don't know about the Porcupine Caribou that once in 

awhile may make it up to the North Slope or not, but I know what 

this body and the Supreme Court has said about a national energy policy. 

And so, you know, when we hear the Secretary of State, James 

Baker, say we are going to war, a lot of mothers had to send their 

sons to Desert Storm and the Administration said we were going 

to war to fight for oil. You know, it pretty well brings it into per- spective how important ANWR is to the national public interest 

and to the lives of young men and women. I think it is pretty important. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you. Let me follow up on that last 

point first, if I might. Mr. Shively, if this oil is brought out, will 

it be exported to forei~ countries? 

Mr. SHIVELY. I don t know the answer to that question. It really depends on the timing of the oil and the marketing on the west 

coast. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, if the bill passes that we have now that 

would allow for the export of Alaskan oil away from United States, 

is it likely that this oil would be included in the oil that would be 

eligible for export out of the United States? 

Mr. SHIVELY. This oil would clearly be eligible for export outside 

the United States, but in the case of emergency the President has 

the power to stop any export and keep the oil in--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand, but if the argument is that we 

are facing emergency anyway, which by the way I think we do, we 

are now importing more oil than we ever have before, but--and I 

would like to see our own needs met first, but I understand the 

revenue questions and all the rest. I just don't want to leave on the 

record that this is a question of oil being gained that would not 

otherwise be gained ana that it accrues necessarily to the total that 

would be retained within the boundaries of the United States. 

Mr. Lesh)', I want to make sure that I understood what you said 

originally. Now I am looking at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 

Its People, Wildlife Resources, Oil and Gas Potential, a brochure 

which you may perhaps have or could be furnished to you by someone there. Maybe the committee has a copy that I could give to you. 
39 

The reason I am asking is if you look on page 16 and 17 I am trying to figure out what you meant by your statement, if I heard it 

correctly, that there is interest in drilling for oil west of the current 

drilling, and that that would-that there would be-that is already eligible. That area, I presume, is below the Barrow Arch and somewhere between the Thrust Belt and the Colville Trough. In other 

words, between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea. Is that 

correct? Did I understand you correctly that if we went west from 

ANWR, and I presume west of Prudhoe or Kuparuk or Milne that 

that is what you are talking about, or am I misunderstanding your 

point. 

Mr. LEsHY. No, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Abercrombie, that 

is basically right. I have not been personally involved in those discussions, but I know there have been discussions between the Department and some oil companies concerning proposed exploration 

and development. This is in the Naval Petroleum Reserve and my 

understanding is the area is somewhere between Fish Creek and 

Simpson on that map. In other words, it is west of the state lands 

around Prudhoe and the development there. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Between, I am sorry, what and Simpson? 

Mr. LESHY. Well, west of Harrison Bay between Fish Creek and 

Simpson. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK 

Mr. LESHY. Onshore in that area. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Do you have any more information or could 

you provide it to the committee with respect to the likelihood or the 

prospects, or perhaps, Mr. Shively, you might know something 

about that? 

Mr. SHIVELY. Well, Mr. Chairman, there has been some interest 

because of a recent discovery of what is marked as Colville on your 

map, but going further west. However, the geology would show not 

the kind of Prudhoe Bay size fields that the potential geology 

shows in the 1002 area, but probably more likely 100 million to 

maybe 300 or 400 million size fields, much smaller fields. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. What are we talking about in terms of years 

of production, current technology? Well, that is OK if you--

Mr. SHIVELY. Probably ten to 15 years for a small--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I see. Are you familiar, Mr. Leshy, and I want 

to know what your-the Department position if you are familiar 

with a discussion that I have had previously in this committee 

about the idea that where Kaktovik is concerned, the area around 

Kaktovik, that that clearly is native Alaskan land and that from 

my point of view, speaking as a representative from Hawaii, my interest in this, and you should know this for the record, because I 

don't believe we talked before, is that I believe native peoples have 

the right to make decisions about land. There has been quite 

enough decisionmaking made for them. The difficulty here is there 

is a dispute that-as to what should be done among native peoples, 

but nonetheless where Kaktovik is concerned I concluded that if 

the people in Kaktovik wanted to drill or slant drill. I call it slant 

drilling, but there is another name for it which escapes me at the 

moment. 

Mr. LESHY. Directional. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Pardon me? 
40 

Mr. LEsHY. Directional drilling. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yeah. And that that has improved considerably, the technology has improved considerably. And that might go 

under the ANWR Coastal Plain to some degree. Do you oppose that 

as well, because I aiil.. going to have difficulty in dealiniJ with your opposition in the ANWR if you are also opposed to nattve-I want 

to be frank with you why I am asking the question. I have difficulty in countenancing your opposition in the Coastal Plain if you 

are also opposing the people in Kaktovik being able to exercise 

what drilling they might find suitable if they do. 

Mr. LESHY. Yes, Mr. Chairman, Congressman Abercrombie, I am 

happy to address that. A little history is necessary here. The lands 

controlled by the Kaktovik came about, that is their ownership interest in those lands came about as a result of an exchange that 

was done, you are probably familiar, in the Reagan Administration, 

I think. In the mid-1980's they were given rights to select and did 

select rights, did select lands in the Coastal Plain. It was very clear 

at the time, understood by everybody and certainly by the Kaktovik 

people that they had no right to develop that land, that in other 

words their rights for oil and gas purposes. Their rights, their selection rights were exercised with the clear understanding that if 

Congress decided to open up the area, then they could develop it--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The question--

Mr. LESHY [continuing]. like anybody else in the 1002 area. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I und~rstand that. Mr. Chairman, I realize I 

am at the end here, so I want it clear on the record. I understand 

that, but that is like-native people have been through this before. 

If you would never get a shot at getting the land in the first place unless you knuckle under to that. So what I am saying is do you 

opP.ose the Congress enabling the people of Kaktovik to engage in 

dnlling if they desire to do it?" 

Mr. LESHY. We oppose--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. If this proposition was put forward in the 

Congress. 

Mr. LEsHY. We oppose Congress changing the law which currently prohibits any drilling in the 1002 area. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, I want to go on the record and say I 

can't agree with that but that is another issue, I think, that will 

come up in this. 

Mr. Chairman, I app~ciate your indulgence. Thank you, Mr. 

Leshy. If you have anything further on that, I would appreciate you 

making it available to the Chair. 

Mr. LESHY. OK, I would just-if I could have 30 seconds. The 

Secretary spent a lot of time in Alaska. He spent a lot of time with 

native people in Alaska and working on native Alaskan issues. This 

is a difficult question because, as you and others have pointed out, 

the native peoples of Alaska are divided on this issue, the general 

issue of the 1002 area development. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I can't help but 

sit here and think about the policy implications that Congress is 

asked to make here in 1995. When you think about this issue is 

that if this were private land and private minerals we wouldn't be 
41 

here talking about it. It would be developed. We are talking about 

what is owned by the public, what is owned by all the people of 

the United States. It is publicly owned land which has been designated as Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is no other Arctic 

except in Alaska, just like there is no other Sequoia giganteums except in California, so the area is unique to Alaska but owned by 

all people in this country. 

It is a National Wildlife Refuge, meaning that it has already been signified that the resources that is most important to the public are the refuge, are the wildlife. And now we are talking about 

needing to open that up to sell it to the private market and we do 

that by defending the fact that we need to be more reliant on domestic supply. 

You know, it is ironic that debate goes on at the same time we 

are talking about already selling that supply to Japan. It is also 

ironic if we were so dependent on domestic resources why then is 

the largest developer of oil in Alaska a foreign owned corporation. 

So it is-what I would like to talk about is sort of the big picture. 

And I want to-the question really is to all of you in a big picture 

sense. 

One is frrst to John Leshy. I can't help but think that if Secretary Babbitt were here the better question I would like to ask 

him is his wife Hatty is our representative, our ambassador to the 

Organization of American States. One of the big issues in Latin 

America is try to make Latin America, particularly Colombia, less 

dependent on having to produce drugs that are consumed in the 

United States by being more reliant on other types of natural resources. 

British Petroleum just went into partnership with the Colombian 

government for one of the biggest oil finds in Latin America. 

Wouldn't it be better in our national security rolicy to develop the Cusiana oil field and to develop, bring that oi into the United 

States rather than to rush to judgment on the Arctic wildlife? 

I would hope that you might share that question with Secretary 

Babbitt to see if we could look at the big picture of oil economics 

and see whether there is better benefits to the United States to import Colombian oil before exporting Alaskan oil. I don't know if you 

want to comment on that. 

I would like to also ask John Shively if indeed the resource is in 

Alaska and it belongs to all the public, what galls me as a lower 

state, I think every member of this committee other than the chair, 

is that we also have national lands in our states. And if you develop those lands for oil and gas, the states only get 50 percent. 

Alaska is claiming 90. If you cut our trees, we only get 25 percent 

out of it from the local state. Why is this balance that Alaska gets 

so much more than the other states, and frankly, doesn't have the 

adverse impacts of all the people that we have down here. I mean, 

we are the consumers of our local resources and that is why I am 

very interested if indeed this goes through. You know, I frankly hope that this is a debate that our great, 

great grandchildren can have because I don't think that we need 

to rush to judgment ri~ht now. I don't see the national security issue and I frankly don t see the economics of it helping us at all 

here in the Lower 48 or 49, because I think Hawaii needs it also. 
42 

But we-why should we support a formula that isn't going to guarantee that any of the revenues come to our local governments and 

our cities and counties in the United States. 

And lastly, Mr. Rexford, I would like to ask one of the things that everybody has talked about is the great job growth that is 

going to be there, this great employment as you develop ANWR 

and yet you sit here and tell us that if indeed it develops you want 

Impact Aid. Impact Aid, that is Federal, you know, welfare program for an area that is supposed to be hot for job opportunity. I 

don't see the rationale in requesting Impact Aid for something that 

is going to be so job producing. So any of you want to respond? 

Mr. SHIVELY. Yeah, let me take the 90-Mr. Chairman, Rep- resentative Farr, let me take the 90/10 issue. We would not expect 

Congress to open ANWR and take only ten percent. The lawsuit we 

have is over an issue that we have where Congress has already taken revenues from us under a current formula. We testified yes- terday in the Senate that we would support 50 percent. And we believe there is a way to do it. We just believe it cannot be done unilaterally. It would take the consent of the state. 

Mr. F ARR. If indeed 50 percent, I want to insure that that money 

gets right to local governments in the United States for use on environmental mitigation on other, you know, impacts, because we 

don't have-that money comes here to the Water and Land Conservation Funds and Congress doesn't appropriate it, so it doesn't 

help anybody. It is just sitting here, you know, to look good on our 

ledgers. 

Mr. SHIVELY. Well, Governor Knowles has supported a similar 

concept, but how Congress appropriates the money, of course, is not 

something the state of Alaska can control. 

Mr. LEsHY. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Farr, I am happy to respond briefly. I am happy to share your concerns with the Secretary and Mrs. Babbitt. I strongly suspect he is going to agree with just about everything that you said. Opening up the Arctic 

Refuge has very little, next to nothing frankly, to do with energy security. And he strongly believes that. 

Mr. RExFoRD. Representative Farr, I thank you for the question that you have asked me about Impact Aid. I would like to share 

with you the types of benefits that we have received in Wainwright, Atkasuk, Nuiqsut and Barrow. The Children's Receiving 

Home was constructed for $3.7 million from the NPRA impact funds. The Congress in its infinite wisdom was able to foresee that 

there would be impact and so these funds were appropriated and 

allocated. 

The impact to the community of Kaktovik could be tremendous. 

During the 1970's the construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, there was impact to every community across the state of 

Alaska, some social impacts, some impacts dealing with illicit drug 

use and abuse, those are the type of things that we would like to 

be able to avoid and prepare for in the future. 

To me Impact Aid provides an opportunity to prevent and pro- vide services for social ills that may possibly emerge in the future. 

And in terms of job growth, there will be employment opportuni- ties. Again, the opportunities for the Inupiat people are tremendous 
43 

provided that oil is found. And I want to note that, again, over and 

over again it has been emphasized that when-if oil is not found, 

there will be no adverse or virtually no impact. 

But we do not want to become welfare recipients to the United 

States of America when we can become self-reliant, be independent 

of welfare, have the opportunity to hold up our head high and say 

yes, we can stand on our own two feet as indigenous people and 

as a home-rule government to provide the basic life, health and 

safety services in the name of taxing oil and gas properties. 

I do not know where else in this world that you can go and 

have-go to a land of opportunity and to provide for your people. 

In this great country of ours, ANWR is an opportunity for the 

Inupiat people, the residents and constituency of the North Slope 

Borough. And we are committed to sound environmental development. We have land management regulations and policies to protect the life ways of the Inupiat people and we respect the rights 

or the Gwich'in and other indigenous people who are dependent on 

the living resources of the air, land and sea. 

We too depend on those resources, but we do it in a way that we 

respect and conserve those resources without impacting them. And 

I thank you for your question. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Rexford. I thank this panel. I appreciate your testimony. Our next panel will consist of Mr. Mike 

Joyce of ARCO Alaska; Ms. Judi Brady, Executive Director of Alaska Oil and Gas Association; Mr. Roger Herrera, a consultant with 

Arctic Power; Mr. Dave Cline with the National Audubon Society 

in Alaska. I understand that some of the folks on the next panel 

need to catch some airplanes and so we will try to get you out of 

here as soon as possible and stay on our time line. 

Mr. Joyce, if you are prepared, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL R. JOYCE, CONSULTANT, ARCO 

ALASKA, INC. 

Mr. JOYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Mike Joyce. I am the Senior Biologist with ARCO 

Alaska. The perspectives I want to share with you here today are 

based on my 21 years of direct experience in planning, building, 

managing how oil field operations interact with Arctic wildlife. 

We have learned much since Congress last debated the question 

of ANWR, Section 1002 and the Arctic Oil Reserve. Yet still today 

I am puzzled why so little credibility is given to the existing biological record of the North Slope oil fields. Those opposed to oil development in the Arctic Oil Reserve most frequently state that 

their opposition is based on their assumptions of the serious damage that will occur to local wildlife and their habitats. Yet they 

have no credible evidence to support those concerns. Why do these 

opponents continue to either ignore or discredit the evidence collected from over 20 years of continuous monitoring in the Prudhoe 

Bay region? Much of that monitoring is conducted by the state and 

Federal resource agencies themselves. Why is it that only their assumed negative impacts from existing operations, by the way which 

are all based on old technologies and no longer relevant, will transfer to new locations and new activities, but yet the positive conclusions from existing operations, like caribou will pass under an ele-
44 

vated pipeline. somehow will not correlate to a new development in 

a new location? Why do they expect animals located 80 miles apart from one another to behave completely differently. The evidence is 

clear, by all defensible scientific accounts, the fish and wildlife resources in the Prudhoe Bay region are healthy. productive and per- fonn nonnal behaviors in nonnal patterns. Animals living 80 miles 

to the east should be expected to behave the same way. 

Let me update you on some of the recent biological record of the 

existing oil field. Let us look at the two animals that are most sensitive to development, one mammal, one bird. Most of you know the 

record of the population growth of the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. 

I want to focus on other aspects of caribou ecology. 

Many hours of debate have centered around how often and how 

many caribou calve in any given year inside Section 1002. In fact, 

in the past few days the Alaska Department of Fish and Game has 

released a report stating that over 90 percent of the collared Porcupine cows calved in 1995 in the 1002 area. Even if that estimate 

is correct, 1995 does not represent the nonnal condition. The record 

will show that. And even if it did represent a nonnal condition, the 

question of whether caribou do or do not usually calve at some percentage in any specific location is not the question that should be 

debated. 

The question is if during any given year caribou decide to go to 

any given location to calve or perfonn any other activity will an oil 

field prohibit them from doing what they want when they want and 

where they want to do it. For that question we have to turn to the 

available data on oil field and caribou interactions. Those data tell 

us . that from the 20 years of observation on the Central Arctic 

Herd, oil fields do not impede caribou from doing what they want, 

including calving where they want. And since caribou are caribou, 

whether they are members of the Porcupine or Central Arctic 

Herds, that conclusion should apply to animals located 80 miles 

apart. 

Indeed, in 1992 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Alaska 

Department of Fish and Game and the North Slope Borough in cooperation with the Alaska Oil and Gas Association fonned a joint caribou steering committee to look at this question of what the effects have been of mitigation measures on caribou movement and 

nonnal behavior inside the existing oil fields. The final report was 

issued last fall and its conclusions were approved by all participat- ing groups. Concurrent signatures of the Regional Director of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the Director of the North Slope Wildlife Department are inside the report•s covers. 

That report•s basic conclusion is that with the exception of cows 

with newborn two to three week old calves, the mitigation measures implemented by the industry have been fully effective in allowing free movement of caribou throughout the oil fields. After 

calves mature past this two to three week period in time. they as 

well move freely throughout the fields. 

Let us look at another question, though, about caribou ecologyinsect harassment. The Beaufort Sea Coastal Strip is very important to caribou during the July insect harassment season. The existing oil fields, as you know, are mostly located within this ten to 
45 

12 mile coastal strip. Thus another important question of the evidence is have the existing oil fields impeded relief from the annual 

harassment by flies and mosquitoes. 

Again, the data are clear and the data say no. In fact, we had 

seen a very interesting positive adaptation in the way these caribou respond during this insect season. During hot, wind free periods when insects are most active, hundreds and collectively thousands of caribou, will move onto our gravel pads and stand there 

for hours to minimize their insect harassment. They used to go to 

the coast. Now many of them simply go to the nearest drill pad. 

The two exhibits that are displayed show this behavior. 

The Porcupine Caribou Herd, as you know, also move to the 

coastal strip and depend on it for insect relief. I believe we should 

expect the same type of adaptation and beneficial response to gravel pads by Porcupine Caribou. 

Let us look at the other sensitive animal I have mentioned, the 

Tundra Swan. 

Mr. CALVERT. If you could finish your testimony. I am sorry, Mr. 

Joyce. There are some members on the panel that need to leave 

early and we need to have some time for questions. 

Mr. JOYCE. Can do. Yes, sir. We use Tundra Swans as an indicator of waterfowl health inside the oil fields. We have been monitoring swans for nine years. That monitoring has shown us that those 

swan populations are healthy and stable. In 1995 we had 108 swan 

nests inside the Kuparuk Oil Field. Thus, the only conclusion logical people can draw is Arctic oil field development is fully compatible with the maintenance of healthy fish and wildlife resources 

and this issue should not be the reason for disallowing development in the Arctic Oil Reserve. 

[Statement of Michael R. Joyce may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Joyce. Ms. Judi Brady, Executive Director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH BRADY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ALASKA on. AND GAS ASSOCIATION 

Ms BRADY. Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is Judith 

Brady and I am Executive Director of Alaska Oil and Gas Association. Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on leasing 

the 1002 portion of the Coastal Plain of ANWR. For the record, 

AOGA is a trade association whose 18 member companies account 

for the majority of oil and gas exploration and production activities 

in Alaska. 

And just for your information, the kind of things that we do in 

AOGA is just what Mike Joyce was just talking about. We spend 

a good deal of time doing cooperative studies, environmental studies with state and Federal agencies. We respond to technical ques- tions. We comment on state and Federal regulations and studies 

and we recommend best interest practices. 

AOGA strongly supports legislation allowing Congress to open 

the 1002 area to oil and gas competitive leasing exploration and development. 

We would like to point out-I am going-I am just going to make 

two points because all the other points are in the record and people 

have made them before. The first important point is how many 
46 

Alaskans do support opening this portion of the Coastal Plain to oil 

and gas development. 

The dynamic in Alaska is very special. We have a limited number of people there and we have all been there-a lot of us have 

been there a long time, worn a lot of different hats through the 

years. You couldn't get anybody in this room to say they wanted 

oil and gas development if they hadn't seen it done correctly. And 

you couldn't get 75 percent of Alaskans to say they supported oil 

and gas development if they had not seen it done correctly. 

As the oil and gas industry, we see this as a very important vote 

of confidence in what we have done so far in Prudhoe Bay. You 

have heard testimony that we have been operating there for the 

last 20 years at least. And even in the '70's oil and gas development in Prudhoe Bay was model development. Things have 

changed a lot. We have improved a lot. We have improved by 20 

years and all of those improvements will go forward to be developed if 1002 area can be developed. 

I wanted to say we talked about-because this is a budget bill 

there has been some questions about would the industry be interested and would the money that has been talked about be there. 

The industry depends on two things, production and reserves. And 

reserves are-future reserves are very, very important. So there 

will be a lot of interest in the opening of the 1002 area, because 

the geology, even though there is difference in how much is there, 

the geology certainly indicates that there are vast amounts of potential there. 

For the record, we had in Alaska sale in 1969 at Prudhoe Bay 

and the bonus bids were 900 million. Senator Stevens alluded to 

that. That would be $3.6 billion in today's dollars and five years from now it would be $4.2 billion in bonus bids. And we expect that 

the bonus bids for this area would be similar to that at Prudhoe 

Bay. Bonus bids received in the 1979 Federal state Beaufort sale 

was 567 million for the state and 491 million for the Federal Government. The total was over a billion dollars. The Mukluk Beaufort 

Sea sale in 1982 brought Federal bonus bids of $2 billion and companies paid more than 877 million for leases in the Volferd in 1985. 

So if the question is will the money be there in bonus bids, again, 

past experience says it will just like past experience says we can 

develop without having to choose between the caribou and the oil, 

which Alaskans truly would not do. Thanklou. 

[Statement of Judith Brady may be foun at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Ms. Brady. Mr. Roger Herrera, Consultant with the Arctic Power Company. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER HERRERA, CONSULTANT, ARCTIC 

POWER 

Mr. HERRERA. Mr. Chairman, I am representing Arctic Power 

today and I should explain that organization. It is a not for profit 

grassroots citizen's organization. It has about 12,000 members, 

mainly in Alaska, some in the lower 48 states. Its sole purpose in 

life is to educate and persuade Congress to open up the Coastal 

Plain to responsible oil and gas leasing. As you have heard, it is 

very bipartisan as it represents really a cross section of approximately 80 percent of Alaskans that do support this effort. 
47 

If I may, I want to divert a little from my prepared remarks and 

just address one or two things which have clearly been of interest 

today and have come up. Firstly, let us talk about OPEC. We have 

become very fat and happy in this country about energy, probably fat because we don't walk enough and happy because of the price of a gallon of gas, but really we shouldn't be. 

In 1973 when the first oil embargo happened the market share 

that OPEC commanded has never yet been recaptured by OPEC. 

They still have less world market share today than they did at that 

time when they- were able to use their monopoly to create the first 

energy upset. However, they will be reaching that same percentage market share in the next three, four, five years, something like 

that. Watch out America when that happens because then clearly they have the same ability as they used in '73 and '79 to put us 

in real energy jeopardy. And that jeopardy will be far greater next 

time round than it was on those occasions. 

Then we were producing in this country 9.2 million barrels of oil 

a day. Now we are producing six and a half. Now we are 50 percent dependent on foreign oil. So to ignore those threats and sort of 

make easy decisions on the Coastal Plain of ANWR would be very irresponsible in my view. 

Let me present one other world viewpoint which is interesting and never seems to be considered, the role of Asia in the energy equation in the world today. Right now America imports something like 25, 26 percent of the marketed oil in the world. Asia imports 

34 percent, something like that today, more than we do. They are 

a greater force than we are in impacting and effecting the price of 

oil. But in ten years time Asia will be importing something like 75 

percent of the traded oil in the world. 

Now to ignore that and say that oh, well, we are really the drivers of the world price of oil, obviously would be to our peril. All of 

that is obviously pointing to making a responsible decision about 

the Coastal Plain. 

Let me address one other point or one point which was brought 

up here today. And it is one of those red herrings that we periodi- cally get from the Department of Interior and others. And this is 

this business about water in the Arctic. Well, perhaps to a lay person water in the Arctic, especially in ten months of the year when 

it is frozen, is somewhat difficult. I should ask you how do you think wells are drilled in Saudi Arabia or in the middle of the Sahara Desert? There is no water there either. 

You can drill wells in identical fashion in the middle of the wintertime on the Coastal Plain. You don't have to have freshwater 

from the surface. You can use the sea water if you are close to the 

coast. You can drill a slim hole down 2000 feet beneath the perma- frost and you can retrieve so much water you would be drowned 

in the stuff. All you have to do is desalinate it to make it freshwater to build pads and roads and so on. Water is not an issue. 

It is a total non-issue in practical terms. 

If I may, I would like to comment on the footprint because we 

have heard today by several people the estimation that was made 

way back in 1987 that the footprint on the Coastal Plain will be 

a spider's web and all this other stuff, and it will occupy perhaps 12-1/2 thousand acres. Well, let us look what has happened since 
48 

1987 on the North Slope of Alaska. As Senator Stevens mentioned, 

you don't have roads necessarily any longer. Your pads are very 

small. Your pipelines are buried. Gone, therefore, is your spider's 

web. 

More importantly, if the Coastal Plain contains the sort of estimates of oil that we are talking about, one can expect, depending 

on how that oil is distributed, obviously, that a maximum of 2000 

acres of land is going to be covered up, not 12,000, not 1-1/2 million. It gets smaller and smaller with time. Another ten years and 

undoubtedly the facilities will be designed so the caribou will love 

them even more than they do now. So again, I think we have got 

to be realistic in understanding what has happened over the last 

decade or so in the Arctic. 

One last thing and I will close. And there are lots of other things 

that are worth mentioning, for example, about the willingness to 

develop oil in other wildlife refuges, eight of them around the country. I mean, Department of Interior saying that was a drainage situation is nonsense. You don't have to drain oil from anywhere or 

at least produce oil from anywhere to prevent drainage. You can 

unitize and happily share the oil. That is done routinely. Oil is developed on other wildlife refuges because it can be done safely. If 

it can be done in eight, why can't it be done in the ninth one? In 

fact, we do have it in the ninth one and in any of the previous eight 

ones. 

One last point and that is the position of the Administration opposed to this and yet that same Administration spends a lot of 

time, Vice President Gore in particular, trying to coerce American 

oil companies and businesses to allow oil or to help oil development 

in Russia. Now give me a break. There is no way Russian oil is 

going to be developed under any auspices with the care and attention to the environment that will happen in Alaska. There is no 

contest in that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Statement of Roger C. Herrera may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Dave Cline with the National Audubon Society. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. CLINE, VICE PRESIDENT, NATIONAL 

AUDUBON SOCIETY 

Mr. CLINE. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name 

is Dave Cline. I am Regional Vice President for the National Audubon Society and I reside in Anchorage where I have lived for some 

24 years. Our organization's position on this contentious issue remains exactly the same as it was in 1960 when we supported establishment of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge by President Eisenhower to preserve for the American people unique wildlife, wilderness and recreation values. 

Since oil development on any scale is totally incompatible with 

protection of the most superlative wilderness in the National Wildlife Refuge System, we recommend strongly that it should be prohibited. We feel that what we are really dealing with here 1s a 

choice of value more than numbers of caribou or swans or any 

other wildlife species that we can speak about. 

As a member of Alaska Governor Tony Knowles' Oil and Gas Policy Council I have had the good fortune to sit around the table with 
49 

the executives of major oil companies operating in Alaska. These 

include Exxon, British Petroleum and ARCO. And I find that most 

of the debate at the table is focused on all the oil reserves already known or those that could be discovered in and around the Prudhoe 

Bay complex and what could be done to shape Alaska's tax and royalty regime to make this oil more globally competitive. 

And just what do these North Slope oil reserves consist of that 

it is of such concern to the companies now operating in the state? 

Information recently provided by British Petroleum to the state's 

Oil and Gas Conservation Commission reveals that Prudhoe Bay, 

the nation's major oil field, remains the mainstay of Alaska's oil 

patch. It is now expected to provide nearly 200,000 barrels of oil 

a day as far into the future as the year 2080. Other overlapping 

fields containing known oil reserves at different depths enhance 

the North Slope's long-term value. 

In a presentation to the Oil and Gas Council by a company 

known as OXY USA, a Houston-based oil firm-this report was 

given to the council on June 19, 1995-and along with it a report 

entitled "Unlocking the Heavy Oil Potential on Alaska's North 

Slope," company executives stressed the importance of royalty relief 

in Alaska as an incentive to develop some 26 billion barrels of oil 

that stands in place in oil fields such as West Sak, Kuparuk and 

Milne Point. Those kinds of estimates are more than the most wildly optimistic estimates of light oil reserves at Prudhoe Bay and the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined. 

Not to be overlooked in this discussion is the fact that the North 

Slope gas owners, principally ARCO, BP and Exxon, are sitting on 

some 87 trillion cubic feet of proven gas reserves. The Yukon Pacific Corporation is vigorously trying to build a pipeline to deliver 

this gas to Asian markets. Should that pipeline be approved and 

construction begin, we are talking about a cost of in the neighborhood of $14 billion and as many as 10,000 construction jobs. The 

point is, there is an awful lot of oil that the companies already are 

sitting on along with gas. So, it is not like we Alaskans are going 

broke. 

So why are we proposing to invite both U.S. and foreign owned 

oil companies into a flagship wildlife refuge in the wilderness area 

when they haven't even developed what they've got? This doesn't 

make sense to me. 

Drilling proponents say it would lessen, however, our oil dependency. That is, our dependence on foreign oil reserves. But there is 

no evidence that we can drill our way to energy independence here 

in the United States. Our country will remain dependent on foreign 

oil whether or not we drill the Coastal Plain of the Arctic Refuge. 

Evidence indicates that Americans account for 26 percent of the 

world's annual oil consumption while proven U.S. reserves comprise merely 8.5 percent of the world supply. 

It is just simply a fallacy more North Slope oil would have a significant effect on our control over the world oil market. And that 

can be seen in the history of the 1980's. During that decade produc- tion at Prudhoe Bay peaked, but we still imported more oil than 

ever before. An Oil and Gas Journal editorial of June 18, 1994, 

said that imported oil doesn't harm U.S. security. 
50 

So I ask you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, 

what is really going on here? It just doesn't add up. The worst case 

scenario that I can see coming out of this proposal is a sacrifice of 

a national treasure important to millions of Americans, that is the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, simply to sell off some of our last 

energy assets at rock bottom world prices of anywhere from 16 to 

19 dollars a barrel to foreign consumers living in countries that are 

most fierce economic competitors. It seems to me the height of folly 

to suggest that this is in the long-term national security interest 

of the United States. 

So with that I would close, Mr. Chairman, and request that a 

news release of 1987 from Audubon be entered in the record since 

some of our drilling proponents charge that two small gas wells in 

a non-wilderness area that is in the Rainey Sanctuary owned by the National Audubon Society in Louisiana somehow makes our no 

drilling position in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge indefensible. 

I respectfully request that our clear explanation be entered in the 

hearing record. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection. 

[Statement of David R. Cline may be found at end of hearing.] [National Audubon Society News Release may be found at end of 

hearing.] 

Mr. CLINE. And show that our impact in Louisiana is like a footprint of a mouse compared to what we are seeing on the North 

Slope of Alaska, which is more analogous to the footprint of a dinosaur. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Brady, with respect to the figures in the budget resolution 

you heard today that is 1.3 billion, do you feel that they represent 

a fair assessment of the money that would be brought in from the 

leases? 

Ms. BRADY. Mr. Chairman, if the lease sales of the past in areas 

that were considered highly prospective are any indication, they 

are probably low. And again, those figures were for the Mukluk 

sale $2 billion. That was in 1982, so that wouldn't even be in today's dollars. And the 900 million in '69 would be $3.6 billion 

today. So the figures in the-for the budget are probably low. 

Mr. CALVERT. Could we be certain that numerous oil companies will compete in a lease sale in the 1002 area? 

Ms. BRADY. Well, only the companies can answer that. The companies don't discuss their leasing plans with each other, but again, 

I think the point is historically that the two things companies must 

have is oil and production reserves. And to continue production and 

to have the reserves they will need for the future, they are going 

to be interested in any potential oil area. And right now what the 

United States is faced with is most of these potential oil areas are 

in other countries. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Herrera, there has been a lot of 

talk today about national security and certainly no one disagrees 

that we are dependent on foreign oil. Right now the mid-east oil 

is somewhat plentiful. It is reasonably priced. Why do we need to 

address the issue as it regards to ANWR today? Mr. HERRERA. I think, Mr. Chairman, because almost inevitably 

the amount of oil we produce from this country will continue to de-
51 

cline in the future as it has over the last five or six years. So consequently, our reliance, even if we indulge in huge conservation 

more than we are now, our reliance on foreign crude oil is going 

to only increase. Now as I said in my testimony, I think that it is 

almost inevitable that the price of that oil will go up. We already have a huge balance to pay on this deficit caused by importing foreign oil, which impacts our economy negatively. We can look forward to that worsening very considerably. Mr. CALVERT. Certainly there has been a lot of discussion, Mr. 

Herrera, about the Alaskans who benefit by opening ANWR and 

certainly we heard from the native Americans along the Coastal 

Plain who testify to the benefits they have accrued over the years, 

but are the Alaskans the only ones to gain from production of oil? 

There seems to be some discussion that whatever happens will be 

just a momentary bright spot and nothing lasting of the benefit will 

continue. What is your opinion on that? 

Mr. HERRERA. No, I think the experience of the last 20 years would suggest rather the opposite. Actually, Alaska is a minor 

player as far as the benefits to its economy of jobs and such like 

good things. When one looks at how the money has been spent for 

existing development, and I think the Commissioner of Natural Resources mentioned a sum of 22.5 billion which has been tracked, 

if you will, over six billion of that was spent in the state of Texas. 

Well, that is--even for a state with the number of people that 

Texas has, that is a considerable boost to its economy. And that 

has been over a fair period of time. One can see similar effects all 

across the nation. So irrespective whether the money goes into the 

Federal treasury, the benefits of jobs that accrue are all across all 

50 states, in fact. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you. Mr. Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, on this job issue, there has been some analysis of that, Mr. Herrera, by others. They claim 3/4 of a million new 

jobs would be derived, I guess, depending upon if they discovered 

oil, I guess. But isn't most of that-are you familiar with the study 

on the jobs? You speak as though you are. 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes, I am. 

Mr. VENTO. Isn't it based on $34 a barrel oil? 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes, it is. 

Mr. VENTO. The entire study is all predicated on the fact that oil 

will be $34 a barrel. 

Mr. HERRERA. Well, may I ask you, what is going to be the price of oil in about ten years' time? We don't know. We have to make 

an estimate of that. And all those people did was make an estimate, state what their estimate was and also make an estimate of 

how much oil will be beneath the Coastal Plain, which is another 

thing we don't know. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I know, but, I mean--

Mr. HERRERA. Actually, they might be wrong. 

Mr. VENTO. Yeah, well they might be wrong. 

Mr. HERRERA. But they might be right, too. 

Mr. VENTO. But they are wrong based on 1995 dollars. Oil prices have not-the study produced in 1988 had quite a different extrapolation than the extrapolation that was used in this particular study. So it has greatly been changed. Furthennore, I think that 
52 

they get into not direct jobs but indirect jobs which is, you know, 

you may know as someone that has studied this, is very speculative in terms of what it points out. Of course this was done by the API, 

so I don't know, obviously they have a goal in mind there in exactly where we go for objective information. 

You have been involved in some activity. You have been a geologist that worked on the Prudhoe Bay project, were you not? 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes, I went to Alaska in 1960 and actually at that 

time Senator Ted Stevens was around. I assure you he was much 

more ornery then than he is now. He has matured and mellowed 

since that time, but I have been there a long time. 

Mr. VENTO. Yeah, we will learn some day, I guess, yeah. 

Mr. HERRERA. That is right. But with regard to your job estimates, don't believe them. I don't really mind. I mean, you can take 

an alternate study done by the Department of Energy which sug- gested that 250,000 jobs might be created. Take your pick, 250,000 

to 735,000. It is still a lot of jobs. 

Mr. VENTO. I think that e,ither one of them are very speculative because they are in terms of the discovery or price of oil and the 

value of these leases, which was referred to here by Ms. Brady, both of them are based on only two sales that occurred at high end 

times by the BLM. And so when you look at the amount of money that is going to be raised, you can't just take rifle shots. You have 

to take a look at what the leasing has done and what is going on 

right now. 

Mr. HERRERA. Well, let me--

Mr. VENTO. Ms. Brady. 

Ms. BRADY. Well, let us talk aboutMr. VENTO. DOE was also based on high prices atMs. BRADY. Let us talk about the rifle shot. The first time in 

1969 when we started, when Prudhoe Bay opened up for the lease 

sale there was no pipeline. Oil was under $5. There were lawsuits. 

The lnupiat people were very much opposed. There were many Alaskans that were very much opposed. Every national conservation group in the United States was opposed and the companies still bid $900 million. Today is much different. Today the oil industry working with the people of the area and the conservation 

groups have improved mightily. We have proved our case. There is 

a pipeline in place and so we are assuming that in this different 

world we will get at least as much money as we did from the Mukluk sale in '82, which was $2 billion. 

Mr. VENTO. Let me interrupt you. What has been the recent 

trend in Alaska right now in terms of bids. Hasn't the trend been 

down in terms of lease values? 

Ms. BRADY. The trend in terms of lease values has been down all 

over the country. 

Mr. VENTO. Except for the gulf, I guess. The gulf has been up based on the recent sales that we noted. 

I might just say, Mr. Cline, I appreciated your insights. Both you and Mr. Joyce use this information from the Department, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, at cross purposes. Everybody 

seems to be using it for their own purpose. It seems to me that it 

was pretty explicit, at least the portions I have read. I am obviously not in the position to read all the studies. You actually spent 
53 

some time doing some studies in this area as a Fish and Wildlife 

Service biologist in the 1970's, is that correct? 

Mr. CLINE. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. My first assignment in moving to Alaska in 1971 was to undertake a study of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge under direction of the Wilderness Act of 

1964 to determine whether it qualified for inclusion in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System. So a small team of biologists and 

myself looked at it very carefully. That was one of the most rewarding and I would say easiest jobs of JI1Y career because it all 

qualified except for the mess at the DEW Line sites along the 

coast. 

Mr. VENTO. My time is going to run out, but the point is in terms 

of establishing the wildlife refuge, there are a lot of purposes for 

which it was established, most of them would be compromised by the development path that is being proposed with regards to leasing, would it not? 

Mr. CLINE. Oil and gas development on any scale in a wilderness 

such as this is, like, totally incompatible. The issue is wildlife in 

a wild setting, not wildlife ·in an industrial complex. There is a 

world of difference between the two. This is a superlative wilderness area which I think we need to set aside for this generation and those to follow. And if there is oil there, maybe our kids would 

like to decide whether it should be developed or not, because we 

are developing 95 percent of oil that is known in the state of Alaska-or planning to develop it. So we are talking about our children's future here and the values they choose. 

Mr. VENTO. Sir, my time is expired. I just would want to comment that it is, you know, sort of like an Arctic desert in terms of 

the rainfall, in terms of its ability to heal itself, these particular lands, very, very fragile lands. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Vento. Ms. Chenoweth. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Thank/ou, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, 

and I realize that I arrive late, a little bit late for the testimony from Senator Stevens, but as I understand it, the .ANWR area we 

are talking about represents about 115 of the total land mass in the 

Lower 48, is that a comparative-how big is .ANWR compared to 

the Lower 48? 

Mr. HERRERA. No, the whole state of Alaska is 115 of the continental United States. The state of Alaska is 375 million acres . .ANWR is approximately 20 million acres. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. And that would compare--

Mr. HERRERA. The Coastal Plain is 1.5. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. OK, all right. And the footprint will be about 

the size of Dulles Airport, did I hear that? 

Mr. HERRERA. Well, I testified it would be much, much smaller 

than that. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Much smaller? 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Mr. Herrera, I thank you for setting the record 

straight. I was shocked to hear you say that our dependence on foreign oil now is up to 60 percent. 

Mr. HERRERA. No, I think it is just over 50 percent. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. 50, OK, that is what I--

Mr. HERRERA. But it is increasing, unfortunately. 
54 

Ms. CHENOWETH. I appreciate all of your testimony. It is very, 

very informative. I was almost left questionless until Mr. Cline 

made a comment about the development in Louisiana and the footprint that is left there. I think that is sort of hard to equate, but 

I appreciate your opening that up and admitting to that situation. 

You know, Mr. Cline, Senator Stevens spoke about the Gwich'in 

leasing their lands. Well, I am curious, what was your organization's position on that decision at that time to lease the lands? 

Mr. CLINE. I don't even recall that we were aware of it at that 

time, so we did not take a position. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. You may want to look that up, you know. Your 

testimony says that you want ANWR to be protected for the 

Gwich'in Indians. Why haven't you considered the wishes of the Eskimo people who actually live on that Coastal Plain? The Gwich'in 

live south and I didn't hear any reference about your concerns 

about the Eskimo people who actually live there. 

Mr. CLINE. That gets very personal with me, Congresswoman, 

because I have dealt with native and wildlife issues during my entire career in Alaska. My record will show that I have time and 

time again taken the position on the side of their subsistence arguments, including getting a specific purpose for the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge in ANILCA of 1980 which actually says one of the 

purposes of this refuge is to provide ongoing opportunities for native subsistence. That and many other examples are on the record 

of my position in support of their requests. It is also in recognition of the fact they own some 5 million acres on the North Slope. They 

have gathered some of the oil wealth through their taxation policies, and I fully expect them to continue taking advantage of oil development in their region. It wouldn't be realistic to think that they 

wouldn't. So I totally honor and respect their choice for now and 

the future of their children. And if there is going to be oil development in the region, I think they should fully benefit from it. 

Ms. CHENOWETH. Mr. Cline, I guess I can't resist saying that I 

appreciated your comment about our children and grandchildren. I 

have six grandchildren and I just truly hope that my grandchildren 

too can make decisions as to whether we drill for oil or not instead 

of whether they will follow their country's command to go to another Desert Storm. I think we cannot lose that perspective. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Ms. Chenoweth. Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I hope 

you folks heard my question to the previous panel with respect to 

whether or not it might be possible to have drilling done in the 

Kaktovik area. The conditions under which that land was received 

would prevent that at the present time. Is that your conclusion as 

well, any of you? Mr. Herrera. 

Mr. HERRERA. Well, one well isMr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Herrera, didn't we meet in Hawaii? 

Mr. HERRERA. No, we met on the North Slope of Alaska. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. No, I know, but we met in Hawaii too, did we 

not, some years back? 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, OK, I thought so. 
55 

Mr. HERRERA. We bump into each other in all sorts of strange 

places, don't we? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Right. I appreciate your hospitality and I 

hope we can show you the same in Hawaii again sometime soon. 

Mr. HERRERA. Well, thank you. The-as you know, one well has 

been drilled on the Kaktovik village lands. And I believe they still 

have the ability to drill on that specific part of their acreage. But 

they do have some acreage which cannot be drilled upon until Congress makes a decision on the Coastal Plain as a whole. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Right. Now when that takes place, I want to 

make sure I understand. Isn't the original-wasn't the original concept that if oil was drilled any place that all of the native Alaskans 

would benefit, because obviously some villages, some areas are not 

in areas in which oil could be drilled. And the thought was, was 

it not, that if there was oil drilled and profits made, that some portion of the income would be shared throughout the state? Am I correct in that? 

Mr. HERRERA. Mr. Abercrombie, you know one picks up this information as an Alaskan resident, but I am really not an expert at 

it. I--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, perhapsMr. HERRERA [continuing]. hesitate to answer questions about it, 

but I am aware of what you say, yes. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is that the understanding of the rest of the 

panel? Mr. Cline? 

Mr. CLINE. My understanding is that under terms of the land exchange, which I have to say was very controversial because it 

didn't go through a thorough public process, is that the Arctic Slope 

Regional Corporation was given subsurface estate. And because of 

a quirk in the law under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, 

because it is subsurface estate, any wealth derived from resources 

there do not have to be shared with other native corporations. It 

is just a rule that applies when they are sharing surface estate resources. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. What would be the situation here if the now 

non-drillable lands were opened up? 

Mr. CLINE. If they were-they would have to be permitted by 

Congress to drill for oil. If it was discovered, it would be theirs to 

do with as they chose. And any profits derived would not have to 

be shared with other native groups. That is my understanding of 

the law. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Is that--now I am talking about not just necessarily Kaktovik, but I am talking about any of the land now in 

dispute as to whether drilling should occur or not. Would your answer still be the same? 

Mr. CLINE. All the other lands on the Coastal Plain belong to the 

Federal Government, so the royalty share between the state and 

the Federal Government would apply there, not between native 

corporations, not involving native corporations. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. The native corporations wouldn't necessarily 

benefit, then? 

Mr. HERRERA. Not directly, no. Indirectly, obviously, they would, 

as you heard from them today. 
56 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, if this was to move forward-see, this 

is-you-Mr. Herrera, and I know that you are particularly aware 

of my concern about native peoples, why hasn't this whole question 

been cast in a vein different from one group of native people versus 

another, say inland native people versus coastal native people? If 

the whole-if everybody was to benefit, now I am not saying they 

would still agree, but if it comes to a point where drilling is allowed 

on these lands, why can't the legislation be written in such a way 

that all the native peoples would be beneficiaries, not just the state 

or the Federal Government? Why shouldn't all of the native peoples 

be the beneficiaries? 

Mr. HERRERA. Well, Mr. Abercrombie, as you know, this--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Particularly if you-let me follow up. Particular if you have questions about the caribou herd and ancient culture and all the rest of it. I mean, that is what this whole argument is about. I hate like hell to see this argument come down in 

the end where it ends up at the Federal Government and the state 

arguing it out and the native peoples in the end are pawns in the 

argument. 

Mr. HERRERA. May I--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And then benefit only indirectly. 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes. May I answer your question from a sort of 

common sense viewpoint rather than a legal viewpoint, because I 

am not qualified to talk in legal terms. Common sense would suggest that what you are saying has lots of merit and that the differing sides should get together and talk out their problems and perhaps reach a negotiated settlement or whatever. This has not happened, though, with regard to the position, for example, of the 

Gwich'in op'fosed to development and the Inupiat. And the fact 

that it hasn t happened isn't because people haven't tried to make 

it happen. There has been an unwillingness on one side not to get 

with the other. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. Mr. Chairman, I will conclude 

simply by sayin~ again for the record that should this come to a 

conclusion, that 1s to say those of us with either the authority, the 

responsibility, I am not even going to comment on whether we have 

the justification or the brains to do it, if we end up making some 

decision, I for one-in which the drilling does take place, I for one 

would hope that we would fashion the legislation in such a way as 

to see to it that the native corporations are the beneficiaries or are 

at least a major shareholder in the beneficiary. And that might 

help in tum then to allow the native either tribal entities or corporations or whatever institutional framework has been established 

for native people to come to a conclusion or resolution they might 

not otherwise feel the necessity of coming to. 

Mr. VENTO. Will the gentleman yield, please? 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, I think I am out of time, but I certainly 

would. 

Mr. CALVERT. I think that the next panel would probably illuminate this issue considerably, but the next gentleman to be recognized is Mr. Farr. 

Mr. FARR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that. 

Mr. Herrera, it is good to see you again. I don't know if you remember when we met in Alaska. I think it was Betty Fairencamp who 
57 

introduced me to you and some of the other-weren't you working 

at that time with British Petroleum? 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes, that is correct. I worked for them for 33 years 

before I retired and became a free man a couple of years ago. 

Mr. FARR. Well, I just have an interesting question because you 

now represent the not-for-profit grassroots citizen organization. 

And, you know, Congress is debating right now a law that would 

say that if your organization received any Federal moneys, you 

couldn't be sitting at that table. 

Mr. HERRERA. Yes, but we don't receive any Federal moneys. 

Mr. FARR. And, Mr. Cline, if he were with the Audubon Society 

and received any Federal moneys, he couldn't be at the table either. But the law doesn't prohibit any organization that receives 

state moneys. Do you receive any money from the state of Alaska? 

Mr. CLINE. Myself? No! 

Mr. FARR. No, Mr. Herrera's organization. 

Mr. HERRERA. Arctic Power does, yes. It receives money from the 

state of Alaska for specific actions concerning this effort to open up 

the Coastal Plain. 

Mr. FARR. Well, the point, and it doesn't really need a response 

from my colleagues and it is too bad so many have left because the 

law that we are adopting would ban some organizations from sitting at that table because they advocate environmental interests 

and they receive Federal dollars, but it wouldn't ban organizations 

that support lobbying for mineral exploration as long as they didn't 

get any Federal dollars, but they could get from the state of interest. So that is just a comment that you might think about. 

What I really want to focus on, one thing that I really enjoyed 

about Alaska, probably the most thing, I came home and I told my 

wife. She said what do you think of Alaska and I said it is incredible. I said I have never been more impressed by the vastness, by 

the quantity of everything, the quantity of mountains, the quantity of wetlands, the quantity of rivers. I said it is just as far as the 

eye can see, that is all you can see. You know, for those of us living 

in the Lower 48, we are just, particularly in California where 

urban sprawl seems to be our best economic product, we need the 

Alaskas to go to. 

And that is why the issue of this wilderness, this idea that the 

vastness of Alaska, I think in the long curb, is going to be your 

greatest economic asset. There are people that are going to want 

to come to see things that you can't see anywhere else. And I think 

that will be a world attraction because the world is getting homogenized. All our communities are looking exactly alike. 

So the question-and it is interesting in the book that you gave 

us, this is a beautiful book, the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, 

the only full page photograph in here is of just the vastness of wilderness. There was nothing on it. 

You know, Congress' biggest debate right now down on the floor 

that we are missing is whether cities will have the power to ban 

a utility pole being put up for these-for the cellular telephones. 

And the biggest debate is that the cities want that power to be able 

to say no, but they want to keep development, even something like 

that, out of their communities and yet when we get to developing 
58 

oil we can't really put that into the formula of the value of not developing it. 

So the question I really have, and it goes to Ms. Brady, is why 

now. Why develop now? Why not with the picture of where the oil 

is going in the world, why not just set that aside and say essentially this is an oil and gas reserve and indeed when there is beyond a reasonable doubt, then we can revisit it. I just can't see the 

urgency with this thing. And it is always jobs and money, but 

frankly opening up jobs in Alaska and developing more jobs in 

Alaska will curtail the development of oil in my own county. 

We have got expensive oil to drill. If the price goes up and they will go-Texaco will drill more oil in my county, so it is my advantage not to see you open. I mean, this oil bounces all over the 

world. It is international market, as you indicated. 

What is the need to do the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge 

now? 

Ms. BRADY. The question is one of infrastructure that is already in place and keeping that infrastructure in place. We do have a 

pipeline now that can access that oil. 

Mr. FARR. So it is the need to fill the pipeline? 

Ms. BRADY. That is-sir, there is several issues. That is one of 

the issues. The other issue is that we have been looking at this 

question for a very long time. You mentioned earlier, you said let 

us not rush into judgment. This has not been a rush into judgment. This has been a very, very long process. And one thing you talked 

about that is very interesting, all of us came to Alaska about the 

same time and have known each other a long time, sometimes on 

the same side of the table and sometimes on the other side of the 

table. 

I came in '63 and spent a lot of time in Gwich'in country on the 

Yukon River in those areas. And Sarah will tell you what it was 

like to live, to grow u_p in Arctic Village and Venetie then. Sometimes the caribou didn't come around. And, you know, we talk 

about kids going out to Chamawa and Chelako, the little six-year- olds with the buttons on to go out to school because that was the 

only place to go. But apart from that, there was about 3000 kids 

that never got to go to school. We had the highest TB rate in the 

country. We had the highest infant mortality death rate in the 

country and oil changed that for us. 

Oil gave us the money to have schools in every village. The jobs 

that are in the village, a lot of them come from-and the larger communities, as well, come from, you know, money from oil. We 

are a very different society. I have three children that live there. 

They can all get jobs. So this is not just big oil. This is people living 

well without sacrificing their wilderness values. We didn't choose 

to live in California. A lot of us moved from California, you know, 

to live the life. 

Mr. CALVERT. In the interests of time, and I know Mr. Joyce has 

a plane to catch, I want to thank this panel for coming here such 

a long distance. We certainly appreciated your testimony and 

thank you very much. 

The next panel, third panel, will consist of Mr. Oliver Leavitt, 

the Vice President of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and 

Ms. Sarah James with the Gwich'in Steering Committee. 
59 

Mr. Leavitt, you could go ahead and--

Mr. LEAvrrr. If you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, as I have been 

taught as I was young, ladies first. 

Mr. CALVERT. OK, that is perfectly correct. Ms. Sarah James, you 

may begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH JAMES, GWICH'IN STEERING 

COMMITTEE 

Ms. JAMES. That is fine with me. I am a squaw. I walk behind 

the man, supposed to be. I respect that. 

I have a written testimony that is handed to the committee and 

thanks for being here and allowing me to talk about my people. Excuse me, I am just kind of unorganized right here. 

[Ms. James' comments in Gwich'in available through Chris Kennedy.] 

I said today I speak for water, air, land. They cannot speak. The 

creator put us here to speak for the earth, to talk for them. So I 

am here today to talk for especially caribou. And I said my 

grandpa, Albert E. Tritt, spoke on the same issue. My father Usias 

[ph] James spoke on the same issue and my sister, my great sister 

Ena Ursol [ph]. And they pass on and here I will be talking about 

it today. 

My name is Sarah James and I am a Netsi Gwich'in from Arctic 

Village, Alaska. Thank you for inviting me to speak for my Gwich'in people. I am here with the direction of the Elders of the 

15 Gwich'in Villages. 

Earlier Senator Stevens was saying this is just only two village that is-he was talking about the two village that didn't go with 

Alaska Land Claims Settlement Act. That was Arctic Village and 

Venetie. We have land of 1.85 million acres under ownership of the 

land. We are the ownership of the land and we govern ourself of 

that. Plus this other village that signed on to protect the Porcupine 

Caribou calving ground and they came together back in 1988 and 

they still united on this issue. The other Alaska villages are Steven 

Village, Fort Yukon, Chalkyitsik, Beaver, Birch Creek, Circle, Canyon and Eagle sign on with us on U.S. side. And then Canada side 

for same people, same caribou, same relation there is a Aklavik, 

Inuvik, Fort McPherson, Arctic Red River and Old Crow. So all 

these villages sign on with one voice to protect Porcupine Caribou 

herd. I just want to clarify that. 

My hardest part of my job is to explain this whole thing from 

English into my Gwich'in language to the Elders when I get home. 

My language is still Gwich'in language, first language. English is 

my second language. I feel that I have a right to speak. I have this 

constitutional right to speak as a first nation. 

One of the things that we don't see in Arctic Village since where 

it is located, every summer lots of people from Congress come to 

Alaska to see Prudhoe Bay and to visit the oil company. They fly 

over the refuge and go to Kaktovik, but they never stop in Arctic 

Village. We always invite them to come to Arctic Village so we can 

show them our way of life. 

Earlier there was mention that we were poor. I am not going to 

cry about my childhood. I think my childhood was great because 

my parents taught me how to take care of the land and in order 
60 

to take care of me in return. So if I don't have one button, nature 

can take care of it. And I can-I would be more willing to cry about 

my-the children of the future. That is why we are here and concerned about what is going on with our caribou and what is going 

on with the earth. 

My people have lived on this land for thousands of years. You 

cannot understand this issue by flying over the refuge and meeting only with the people who want oil development. So today I invite 

you all to stop in Arctic Village during your visit to Alaska this 

summer or any time of the year, like in the winter, January. See 

us, how we live the middle of the winter. If there is nothing up there, we still live up there. 

What happens to Arctic Refuge is not only the environment 

issue. It is human rights issue too, because the survival of the 

Gwich'in culture depends on the protection of birthplace of Porcupine Caribou Herd. It is the basic tribal rights we have to carry on 

our tradition way. Yesterday I was talking to this one person and 

he doesn't know what a traditional way means. I said well, like to 

me traditional way, it doesn't have to be-that is how we got together and that is how we made this decision back in 1988. We 

talk in the Gwich'in and the Elders direct us to protect the Porcupine Caribou Herd. 

[Statement of Sarah James may be found at end of hearing.] 

Mr. CALVERT. Ms. James, I am sorry to interrupt. We are expect- ing a vote, I understand, anywhere within the next five to 15 minutes. And if you could finish up your testimony in a little bit, then 

we can move on over to the next witness and then we will have 

time for questions. 

Ms. JAMES. OK. thank you. Mr. CALVERT. I appreciate that. 

Ms. JAMES. And I got it all written up in my testimony and I already-! have additional that I want to hand in because there is 

always a question about the oil exploration on Gwich'in land. I 

have got a fact sheet on that I would like to hand in. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection any information that you have 

there we will insert into the record. 

Ms. JAMES. OK. good. Thank you. And all I can say is that we 

remain united against the oil development within the Porcupine Caribou calving ground. And it is a sacred ground to us because we 

are caribou people and we won't be there today if it wasn't for caribou. So thank you again and I am willing to answer questions. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you very much for your testimony, Ms. 

James. Mr. Leavitt. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. In the interest of time I would like to submit for the record 

my full testimony and my summary. I would just like to additionally say a few words. 

Mr. CALVERT. Without objection. [Statement of Oliver Leavitt may be found at end of hearing.] 

STATEMENT OF OLIVER LEAVITT, VICE PRESIDENT, ARCTIC 

SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION 

Mr. LEAVITT. Mr. Chairman, my name is Oliver Leavitt. I am the 

Vice President of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and I ap-
61 

pear before you as the Vice President of the Regional Corporation in that capacity. I am also the President of Borough Assembly in 

the North Slope Borough. The Regional Corporation which derived-which came about 

from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, is in full support of the development for leasing in the Coastal Plain. Initially in the 

very beginning, I think if y_ou heard Judi Brady suggesting that 

there was lawsuits by the Eskimos, that was us, because at that 

time we had the fear of the unknown. We thought that the caribou 

would be decimated. We thought the waterfowl, the fish would be 

all gone because of the development on the North Slope. We have 

since changed our mind. 

We are in support of development in the Arctic. We have seen 

what the development can do, the jobs it provides, the security that 

it provides. In those days we didn't have the discovery at Prudhoe 

Bay. We did not have the facilities, the schools, the hospitals, the 

clinics, the airports, police protection, fire protection, those simple 

things did not exist. I had to go 2000 miles just to get a high school 

education. Those now do exist. We enjoy the development of 

Prudhoe Bay and it has been done with a sound environmental 

protection. 

The future of our kids is at hand in the question of the leasing and the development of ANWR. What really scares us is that we 

understand now that Prudhoe Bay is now starting to decline and 

that makes any people nervous. Once we got the comforts that we 

have derived because of the discovery of Prudhoe Bay, it makes us 

nervous about our schools, about our airports, police protection, fire 

protection, medical things that we now have. We have created companies through the Regional Corporation in providing jobs for our 

shareholders in Prudhoe Bay. Most of our companies are with oil. 

We have started to diverse from oil development in our company 

as the Regional Corporation, but by and large it is still largely dependent on Prudhoe Bay and the oil pipeline. And so-and what I would like to further say is that the people 

up there were initially scared and they are not scared anymore. 

They have seen what has happened to the caribou in Prudhoe Bay, what these people previously before me stated. They have grown to 

large numbers. We have seen the caribou in the western Arctic, in 

the central Arctic, they have not diminished. We don't think that 

the development of ANWR would have an adverse impact on the 

caribou or any waterfowl. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Leavitt. We appreciate your testimony. I have a couple of questions. Ms. James, by the way, I thank 

you for your invitation, and if I have the opportunity I would love 

to come up to your village and visit your area. I understand it is 

a couple of hundred miles away from the North Slope and a little 

difficult to get to, but hopefully we could work out some kind of arrangement. It is possible. 

Isn't it true that several thousand Eskimos live on the North 

Slope as well and they, as you are aware of, and they are pretty much totally in support of the development of oil resources along the Coastal Plain. 
62 

Ms. JAMES. Yes, I know that and I have no question and they 

are in the process of their development with oil and gas development, with the Prudhoe Bay, everything else like that, but what we 

are saying is that no development within the Porcupine Caribou 

calving ground of the 1002 area. And that is popular interest land, 

Federal public interest land. And they have their own, under 

ANSCA, selections of lands that I don't have no word to say about 

it and I can't speak for them. 

Mr. CALVERT. Do caribou migrate across your village lands also? 

Have they ever have? 

Ms. JAMES. Yes, every year. Every year, mainly into Canada and 

back and some over-it varies, but they tend to come by there 

every year. 

Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Leavitt, doesn't your people rely on the Porcupine Caribou Herd for subsistence also? 

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes, they do, Mr. Chairman. The village of 

Kaktovik, which is located within the so-called ANWR, do subsist 

off the migrating caribou. 

Mr. CALVERT. So it is fair to say that you care as deeply about 

the future of the Porcupine Caribou as much as the people from, 

as your neighbors 200 miles to the--

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes, we do very much. We would be opposed to it 

if we thought-like 20 plus years ago, we would have the same reaction. But now I think it is very, very different. We see the caribou is a lot more compatible toward development than w~ pre- viously thought. 

Mr. CALVERT. I can only imagine what life must have been like 

30 years ago. You were raised in that area, very cold, very desolate, 

very few people. Being from southern California, the desolate part sounds nice sometimes, but it must have been a very hard life. You 

had to go out and obtain your own food, hunt for your own food. 

Life is a lot different today, I suspect. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Yes, it is. And I was-when I was a child, matter 

of fact I was frobably one of the best students because I loved 

going to schoo because the government buildings were the only 

ones that were warm 24 hours a day. When I woke up if I had a 

glass like this and it had a little bit of water in it, it was broken 

because there was no heat in the house. And until the discovery of Prudhoe Bay, we didn't have 24-hour heating in our homes. 

Mr. CALVERT. So there is fear on the part of your people that as 

this production declines and if the production cannot maintain 

enough oil to go into the pipeline, that all of that ll!~Y just go away. 

Mr. LEAVITT. That is very true, Mr. Chairman. We are afraid to 

turn the page back. Anybody would. 

Mr. CALVERT. I see. Ms. James, how many-1 mentioned a couple 

hundred miles. I am not quite sure of that. How many miles is it 

from your village to the southern border of the 1002 area? 

Ms. JAMEs. A hundred miles. And it is within Inupiat traditional 

land, but we are not saying they can't subsist or hunt and fish, 

whatever, in their traditional land, but then what we are sayinE is that Porcupine Caribou calving ground is sacred and shouldn t 

be disturbed at any rate. And we have no control where caribou, 

Porcupine Caribou, want to calve. And this is where they calve for 

thousands of years. 
63 

Mr. CALVERT. Have you been able to continue to have a reasonable supply of caribou in the last 20 years since oil production has 

taken place right next door at Prudhoe Bay? 

Ms. JAMES. Oh, yeah. It is-we still practice--every year we go 

out and-like, right now we go out and hunt and smoke and dry 

fish for the winter and we also have a solar system freezer where 

we save our meat and it is really-! mean, life is good and we want 

to keep it that way. And we still live off the land and still drink 

water from the stream and we don't have running water but we are 

happy with what we have got and we are rich in our heart with 

the land and what is up there that is natural world. 

Mr. CALVERT. That is certainly-that is good. I understand from 

the testimony today, however, and this is my last comment, that 

the caribou population has done quite well since oil production has 

taken place in Prudhoe and--

Ms. JAMES. Oh, you are talking about-excuse me. 

Mr. CALVERT. And that enough studies have taken place to show 

that the populations would be protected if not continue to rise, 

but-possibly rise, but continue to be protected from everything we 

see. But I am out of time and I will pass the questioning to Mr. 

Vento. 

Mr. VENTO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that 

obviously we will disagree about the Central Caribou Herd. Obviously the Gwich'in people rely on the Porcupine Caribou Herd and 

this calving. I mean, the issue here is absolutely unique. Here you 

have two native American, indigenous groups that are surviving in 

a different way. Obviously Sarah James is living within the culture 

and the traditional manner and obviously Mr. Leavitt has chosen 

a different path. I think it is great that you have these choices, but 

I think that here we have, ironically, a potential conflict that arguably is certainly a conflict between development of the caribou 

calving grounds and the impact that would have in terms of the 

traditional life of the Gwich'in groups and tribe. 

And so it is a very interesting testimony that we are receiving 

on this and I think it, you know, it points out that not only do you need a sort of ecosystem management, but here you have these 

wandering type of migratory herds that really don't really occur in 

the Lower 48 anymore. How do you deal with this particular type of problem? Obviously it is a very, very serious matter in terms of 

the way of life. It is easy to talk about problems in Amazonia. It 

is a little more difficult when they are occurring in Alaska. 

But, Mr. Leavitt, your organization and Department of Interior 

structured a 1983 exchange so that the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation could acquire some of the most prospective oil and gas rights in the ANWR, but at the same time avoid sharing 70 percent 

of the revenues with other Alaska native corporations as required 

by Section 7(i) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. I might 

add which the Gwich'in, of course, ·are not part of. So they don't 

really have an interest in this. But would you accept compliance 

with 7(i) as a condition for Congress to authorize the development of your lands? 

Mr. LEAVITT. I am not sure that I quite understand your question. 
64 

Mr. VENTO. Well, would you share the revenues if your lands 

were to be developed. Would you accept as a condition of development the sharing of revenues from those lands. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Unless Congress changed that, and--

Mr. VENTO. I am askinglour position. I know--

Mr. LEAVITT. No, I woul' not. 

Mr. VENTO. You would not. 

Mr. LEAVITT. I am a director of the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and any way that I can protect the people of the North 

Slope I will do so, as long as it is legal. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I mean, I am just-so you are saying no, that 

you would not accept that. Obviously some of usMr. LEAVITT. Well, I should be fired for even thinking it. 

Mr. VENTO. Yes, well, I am just asking a question. I am not sug- gesting what your answer should be. You know, you are free to answer yes or no or explain. If you want more time to answer, I will 

give you more time. Do you want more time? 

Mr. LEAVITT. There was a deal that was cut in the settlement of 

7(i) between the 12 regions. And one of the stipulations was that 

if you exchange surface for subsurface there was not 7(i) involved. 

We exchanged a piece of property with the United States Government which was surface lands to subsurface, which precludes it 

from being 7(i). 

Mr. VENTo. Axe there other exchanges that have occurred like 

that in regional corporations that you can point out to me? 

Mr. LEAVITT. No, not that I know of. 

Mr. VENTO. I don't know of any others either. It is my understanding that the Village Corporation may have an additional entitlement to some 4200 acres of surface within the Coastal Plain, 

thus giving the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation an additional entitlement, the same amount of subsurface, in other words, another 

4000. This actually projects down into the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge considerably. Is it your view that this additional selection 

is subject to Congressional approval? Do you have a view with regard to that, the splitting off of thisMr. LEAVITT. Yes, I believe that is subject to Congressional ap- proval, yes. · Mr. VENTO. You do believe it is? 

Mr. LEAVITT. That was amended-that was made subject to the 

approval. 

Mr. VENTO. These have substantial economic benefit that inures 

obviously to the benefit, if there is oil, of the regional corporation. 

But at the same time, these types of exchanges diminish greatly 

the value of what the lease value might be that flows to the Federal Government. So I think for the record it is important to note 

here, and I only can do it orally, I don't have any documentation, 

but I think the record should reflect that if indeed these types of 

exchanges were to go through, and even what has gone through here substantially diminishes the value of what we might get in 

terms of leases because of the way that this has been extrapolated and cantilevered during the early 1980's and might be done right 

now. 

So I appreciate the fact thatlou believe it would be subject to 

Congressional approval. It woul also, of course, reduce state reve-
65 

nues and reduce Federal revenues and it would provide access to 

the KICX explanatory well data, because they do have more information. In other words, they are in turn leasing these to a couple 

select companies. And in fact, they have done that and have earned 

revenue. 

What has been the revenue from the leases that you have made 

with these private companies? I can't remember them right now, 

but Chevron is one and--

Mr. LEAVITT. Well, Congressman, with all due respect, do you believe in private property rights? 

Mr. VENTO. Well, I do believe in private property rights. I was 

just wondering here. You don't want to answer the question as to 

what the revenue is that has been acquired? 

Mr. LEAVITT. We have received some revenues. Initially we received $24 million for the right to explore. 

Mr. VENTO. From one company and then you received something 

else from another one? My information is it was a little bit higher 

than that. 

Mr. LEAVITT. Well, no, there is another $12 million that is inthat has been in escrow. 

Mr. VENTO. OK 

Mr. LEAVITT. Then we received some--

Mr. VENTO. We are just trying to get information for the record 

so that we can make decisions on this. That is what we are doing. 

Obviously you have to conduct your business as a business. I expect you to do that and--

Mr. LEAVITT. Well, I would expect that Congress would also respect their deal that they made with the Alaskan natives that if 

I am entitled to another 4000 acres that I should be entitled to it 

and be given so. 

Mr. VENTO. No, I think the question here is whether or not that 

would be a subject of 7(i), whether or not it would be in areas that 

are not available for exploration. The issue is that we have a prohibition in this area against exploration. That is the issue we are 

talking about, who the beneficiaries are, who gets impacted, what 

the revenue stream is to the Federal Government, what the impact 

is on others. I think that the Gwich'in people may feel that they 

have rights, too, in subsistence existence. The exchange by the DLI, 

incidentally, in 1983 was something that was done by Secretary 

Watt. No one in Congress had any voice in that. In other words, 

it was not our deal and I don'tMr. LEAVITT. But under the Alaska Native Settlement Act it was 

permitted. 

Mr. VENTO. Well, it was not something that came before Congress. It was hotly contested. As a matter of fact, there are several 

GAO reports and other information out on it. We suspect, of course, 

that the Secretary of Interior at that time did that as a basis to 

try to provide leverage for in fact opening this up to oil development and in fact putting before us the type of blunder we have exactly here today. 

Mr. CALVERT. One thing I want to do before we move over to Mr. 

Abercrombie to kind of lay to rest native Americans, whether or 

not they should share the revenues any more than the Indian 
66 

tribes in Connecticut or Minnesota share their revenue with poorer tribes in California, Nevada or Arizona, which they don't. 

Mr. VENTO. WellMr. CALVERT. Which is a contingent with the Indian tribes 

that--

Mr. VENTO. Well, the Chairman, I believeMr. CALVERT. Which is their decision to make. 

Mr. VENTO. Other members, it is not the decision of the native 

American tribes to make in this particular instance because this is 

part of the law. 7(i) is part of the Federal law in terms of sharing of the revenues from mmeral receipts. Obviously, the Gwich'in peo- ple are not part of that regional corporation or part of the law. 

They did not get under the selection, but that was the issue. And 

this of course, I think, circumvents it. I think the fact that it hasn't 

occurred in any other native American groups or regional corporations stands in itself. 

Now if we want to pursue that, you can bring an amendment up, 

Mr. Chairman, and you can pursue it in terms of letting them 

make the decisions on their own. But that wasn't the deal that was 

passed in ANSCA or ANILCA. 

Mr. CALVERT. I will leave that to you to--

Mr. VENTO. That was not the deal. 

Mr. CALVERT [continuing]. do that, Mr. Vento. Mr. Abercrombie. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vento. It 

is nice to see both of you folks again. Aloha. I hope that this issue 

can be resolved in some manner that will be beneficial to the native people in a way that doesn't leave you at odds with one another. 

Ms. James, I don't know as we have had a chance to discuss very much before. Can you give me your view as to the proposition I put forward that should the people in Kaktovik wish to pursue drilling, subsurface drilling on the slant drilling that might come in under 

the plain but be from the land that is legally theirs now, would you object to that? 

Ms. JAMES. I would object to it now because I don't know any- thing about it. I have to learn about it before I--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. OK, that-all right, that is a good answer. 

Ms. JAMES [continuing]. can say yes or-it is up to my leaders. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I withdraw, actually, that question. I mean, 

you heard me make this proposition. What I am saying is that I 

would hope that you would look into it to see whether or not that 

would violate your sense of the rightness of things in terms of the 

proper use of the plain and the role of the herd. 

Ms. JAMES. Yeah, I don't know how safe it isMr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. 

Ms. JAMES [continuing]. or anything like that. So I can't give you the answerMr. ABERCROMBIE. I just put forward to you the proposition. It 

might be worth looking into. 

Ms. JAMES. Yeah. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Just as a way possibly of meeting at least 

some of the desires of Mr. Leavitt and the Arctic Slope Corporation. 

Mr. Leavitt, can I ask you, have you had an opportunity at all 

to think along those lines at all about the idea of drilling in the 
67 

land which is now not disputed, which your corporation has respon- sibility for and authority over, and doing some drilling there pos- sibly even with the idea of doing what I call slant drilling. 

Mr. LEAvrrr. We would love to slant drill if we can keep the oil 

and produce it. Right now we have 92,160 acres. Initially Kaktovik 

had that right to select that much. And in any other area we 

could-we had to pick up a subsurface of whatever they selected. 

In this case we had to go through a land deal to get a land exchange. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Right. 

Mr. LEAvrrr. To get the 192,000 acres, but Kaktovik was only allowed to get 69,000 acres. The fourth township was outside the 

wildlife refuge so we brought that back in when we made this land 

exchange to make their lands whole, to be contiguous. And so it is 

that fourth township that we don't have a right to drill on. We 

have the right to drill on the three townships, which is 69,000 

acres, but there is a prohibition upon--

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Well, maybe that could be addressed at some 

point. 

Mr. LEAVITT [continuing]. upon_production on development. We 

don't have the right to develop it. We have the right to drill it. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand. 

Mr. LEAVITT. But we don't have the right to drill thatMr. ABERCROMBIE. All I am suggesting is that absent a resolution about ANWR, you know, the whole argument that goes on 

here year after year, maybe there is something that still could be 

done which accommodates Ms. James' position and would nonetheless enable you to involve yourself in production. And both sides 

maybe would not be totally satisfied at that point, but both sides 

would be not put at a disadvantage and you might find that the 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation is able to get something rather 

than nothing. And the something might be considerable. 

Mr. LEAvrrr. Well, I appreciate that, Congressman. The only problem is if there is not enough oil within the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation as Kaktovik lands we need that other for further development for the future use. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I understand that, but I am saying that my understanding as a lay person about the technology as it is developed is that it is now possible to go beneath the surface without 

starting right above it, but go beneath the surface and go at an 

angle, a considerable angle. Mr. LEAVITT. Directional drilling. 

Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Up to three miles, even. And the Kaktovik 

land now extends out into the plain and three miles from that it 

might in effect be like six miles. You go in different directions. In 

other words, the technology is very sophisticated now that enables 

drilling and production to take place without hitting the surface or 

causing you to have to go directly down from the surface. And all 

I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, is .that I have been told that that 

is something that is worth exploring with the idea of protecting the 

surfaces Ms. James would like to see and at the same time enablin¥ the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation to have a good shot at 

gettmg developable, retrievable oil without having to go directly 

down from the surface. 
68 

I will just leave it at that because it is something that needs to 

be explored. But I am hopeful that this could be worked out, because I think you both know that the native Hawaiian people have 

great love and aloha for you and identify with their Alaskan neigh- bors and friends and hope that this situation can be resolved on behalf of the ancient and honorable culture that exists in Alaska. 

Mr. CALVERT. Thank you, Mr. Abercrombie. In closing, I think 

part of the problem here is the amount of reduction that needs to 

be obtained in order to keep the pipeline open, which the infrastructure of which would be probably impossible to replace. And 

under the agreement in which the pipeline was installed, if produc- tion ceases then that pipeline has to be removed and taken back 

to its original condition underneath it. 

I would like to thank all the witnesses today for attending. You 

came a great distance to be with us. We certainly appreciate your testimony. It helps us as we determine what will occur in Alaska, 

in your beautiful country-your state I should say. Thank you very much. We are adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:00p.m., the committee was adjourned; and the 

following was submitted for the record:] 
69 

IDW>UlOO'ii'li'll~'ii' tQlr? 'ii'llllrn fi[}!]'ii'[gOODtQJOO 

INFORMATION SERVICE 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

For Release l'OVE!<\BER 20, 1957 

SECRETARY SEATON PLANS TO OPEN 20 MILUON ACRES IN ALASKA 

TO MINniG, HI!IERAL LEASING! BIGGEST WILDLIFE RANGE SOUGm' 

Initial steps have been taken to open to mineral leasing and mining claims 20 

million acres of northern Al.aska public llll:lds, and nine million acres in northeast 

· Alaska have been set aside temporarily for future establishment of t.'le Nation l s 

largest wildlife range, Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton announced today 

after conferences in Uashingtoa v.tth Alaska Governor Mike Stepcvich. 

The proposed action announced ~J Secret~/ Seaton would leave unaffected the 

23-million acre Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4, which area was included in a 194J 

public land order (PLO 82) withdrawing mere than 48 million acres in northern 

Alaska from all :forms of entry under the public llll:lli laws, including mineral leasing and mining entry. 

Secretary Seaton said a notice of intention to nodify PLC 82 so as to permit 

resource development outside of the Naval petroleum reserve was signed tcda; a:fter 

he was assured that the Department of the Navy dces not oppose the 1110ve, and 

:further aasured b1 the Geological Survey that the petroleum reserve v.tll be adequately pi-otected by a tYo-mile strip around its perimeter. The Secretary pointed 

out that this "buffer zone" is double the area presently required by" departmantal 

regulations. 

The action taken b1 the Secretary todey 11ould operate to provide a :30-day 

period during 11hicn the public may suCmit written ccmments on the proposed PLO S2 

action. 

Governor Stepovich hailed the proposal opening the area outside the petroleuo 

reserve to oil, gas and othsr mineral leasing, lll:ld to mining as "e. tremendous step 

forward 1n developing of Alesksts natural resources.• 
70 

The separate action announced involves temporary Withdrawal cf approximately 

nine million acres in northeastern Alaska--of vhich five million acres are located 

in the eastern end of the PLO 82 area--pending final detercination of boundaries of a proposed Arctic Wildlife Range. The Secretary said thet the Fish end Wildlife 

Service, at his direction, had filed the application in the Fairbanks lend office on November 191 as the initial step in segregation of these lands fro~ entry under 

the public land laws • 

. Not sny of the 20 million acres proposed for release are expected to be open to 

staking of mining claims until about September 1, 1956, Secretary Seaton said, Mugh 

of the area is unsu_~eyed, snd he said no acreage would be available for oil and 

gas leasing until leasing lll2.ps are prepared for the affected lands. He also empha~ 

sized that the modification order Yill not be signed until after its terms are published in the Federal Re.p.ster end a study ±s made of cements received in a 30.:. 

day period following publication. 

The Secretary expl~ed that pr~ 82 withdrew a~ctal of about 46.8 million acres in Alaska from sale, location, selection and entr1 under the public land laws. 

It also· withdre\ot other lands in southern Alaska, but those withdrawals have already 

been revoked, Secretary Seaton said the ~ew modification would: 

A, Keep Pet. 4ts 23 million acres intact behind the additional buffer acreage. 

B, Release approxicately 20 ~llion acres for oil and gas leases and mirJUog. 

C. PUt aside some five million acres for potential wildlife range use. 

The remaining land under PLO 62 would be accou.o.ted for by the buffer zone. 

The lands lie above a line approximately 150 miles north of the Arctic Circle. 

Most of the 20 million acres proposed for release are east and west of Pet, 4. 

From 1943 to 1953 the Navy and the lleparment of the Interiorts Geological 

Survey explored the withdrawn lands, They found one oil field (Umiat) within 

Pet, 4; one very promising gas field (Gubik) partly inside but mostly outside 

Pet, 4, and several minor or prospective oil and gas deposits. 

The proposed modification wuld open approximately 16,000 aores in the Gubik 

gas field to· competitive leasing, Secretary Seaton said, while about four million acres flanking the Gubik ~tructure would be opened to noncCIIlpetitive leasing, with a 60-da:r period for simultaneous filings. 

Uldi tional leasing periods Yill be provided as maps are prepared and publishecJ.; 

he said. 

The area &~<iucht for the proposed Arctic Wildlife Range extends from the . CaUda--Alaska border west'WIU'd to the Camrl.ng River, in some places 120 miles distant, li'r<Jm the Arctic Ocean it extends as far south as 140 miles to the south 

slopes or the Brooks Range. 

2 
71 

The· request asks that the withdrawal preclude all forms of public land appropriation, except that mineral leasing would be permitted after next September 1, as would mining operations, 

However, hunting Md ta.k:ing of game and fur-trapping wcw.d be permitted in 

accordance with Department regulations and Alaslr..a game lallll, Secretary Seaton said. 

The Secretary stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service of the Department of 

the Interior stressed the areats unique values in wildlife, wilderness values and 

scenery, 

Grizzly and polar bears, Dall sheep, wolverine and great caribou herds are 

among its large game, Countless lakes, ponds and marshes are nesting grounds for 

huge flocks of migrator; waterfowl which spend about half .the year in the United 

States, The fowl are among nearly 100 bird species in the area, NUlllerous small 

land creatures abound. 

Mount Michelson and Mount C~berlain, each more than 91 000 feet in altitude, 

are arresting scenic aspects, 

D!!spite the Arctic location, the area in s=er times offers fine ;;ilderness 

recreation for explorers, bunters, fishermen, mountain climbers and photographers. 

XXX 
72 

The Ho nourable Bil l Richardson 

House of Representative s 

Rayburn Hous e Offi ce Bldg., Rm. 2209 

Washi ngton DC 205 15-3103 

Dear Congressman Ric hardson, 

501 Pennsylvani a Ave N.W. 

Washington, D. C. 200 01 

Ju l y 31, 1995 

RECEiVED 

AU~ () 2 1995 

WASHI.,OTON, DC 

On t he oc~ asio~ of your c~~~itt9e hea~ ~g o~ tha ~~ctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, I am writ i ng to express Canada's 

concern about proposa l s t o open t he coastal p l ain to oil and gas 

e xp lorat i on and developme n t . Canada be lieves that open ing the 

Re fuge to such development will disrupt the sensitive calving 

ground s and the migratory patterns of the Porcup ine Caribou He r d 

on which thousands of Canadian a nd Ameri can Aboriginal people 

depend . 

Last week I visited the v illage of Old Crow, Yukon 

Terri tory, to meet with the Gwich'in community there. I came 

awa y wi th three basic impressions . The f irst was the ut t er 

dependence of the Gwich'in on the Po rcup ine Caribou He rd, not 

only fo r thei r nutrit ion but also fo r their social cohe sion a nd 

cul tura l identity. They are truly "People of the Caribou " . 

The second impression was o f tremendous anxie ty among 

the Gwich'in about development in the 1002 lands disrupting the 

natura l cycle that has been followed by the c aribou and by 

extens i on, the Gwich'in peop l e for many hundreds , perhaps 

thousands of years . 

The thir d i mpression was the sense o f g rievance a mong 

both the Canad i an a.r-.d l'-.:'<12 :Li.cun G·.:~ic ~--;.' i:::-._ th~t i ~ is they who tv i ll 

assume the greatest risks, with no apparent means of redress, if 

t he assurances o f modern industry prove false. 

In 1984, Canada gave wi l derness pro t ection to its 

p o rtion of the caribou calving grounds by creating the Northern 

Yukon (now Ivvav i k) National Park. In signing the 198 7 Canada -

U.S. Agreement on the Conservation of the Porcupi ne Caribou Herd, 

both nat ions recognized the transboundary nature of the se 

wildlife resources and our j oint re sponsibi lity for protecting 

them. Cana da be l ieves tha t the best way to ensu re the future of 

. / 2 
73 

- 2 -

the shared wildlife populations of the Arctic Coastal Plain is 

for the United States to designate the 1002 lands as wilderness, 

thereby providing equal protection to this irreplaceable living resource on both sides of the border. 

Canada is not opposed to environmentally responsible 

northern development. But it is a principal of good 

neighbourliness and international law that states have the 

responsibility to ensure that activities within their 

jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to other states. 

I hope that you will find Canadian views helpful in 

considering these important questions. I would appreciate it if 

this letter could be included in the record of the hearing. 

cr~:i"~ Raymond c:Tretien 

Ambassador 
74 

TESTIMONY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR 

BRUCE BABBITT 

BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

l~ITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ON THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

August 3, 1995 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the CoF<~ittee, 

I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before the 

Committee to discuss the Administration's position on maintaining 

the integrity of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Mr. Chairman, I co~~end you for holding this hearing and 

providing all interested parties an opportunity to be heard. And 

I urge this Co~nittee to ~ollow these hearings with a full debate 

of leg1slation independent of the Budget Resolut1on a~d 

reconciliation process. The fate of the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge is a matter of great national s1gnificance, and it should 

Dot be su:r;narily treated by this Congress as JUSt ancther revenue 

item. The wildlife and wilderness values of the ref~ge are 

irreplaceable resources that we have the opport:_mi ty to pass on 

to future generations. 

I would like to briefly state the Administration's perspective on 

the fundamental question before us and then turn to the issue of 

the revenue projections which appear to be driving this issue in 

the Congress. 

Mr. Chairman, the Clinton Administration supports the U.S. 

domestic oil and gas industry. We have supported efforts to 

increase oil recovery in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico by 

allowing appropriate royalty incentives. We have also supported 

the repeal of the ban on e::porting Alaskan crude oil, subject to 

conditions, in order to increase production in Alaska and prolong 

the life of e::isting oil fields. We have conducted a number of 
75 

extremely successful environmentally sound OCS lease sales -- and 

we plan to conduct more. We have leased more onshore oil and gas 

acreage annually than was leased in the previous administration. 

We have worked cooperatively with the industry to address ongo:ng 

problems and issues and to streamline necessary regulatory 

oversighf -- both at my Department and at the Energy Department. 

Yet this Administration opposes allowing oil and gas development 

on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and I 

would recommend to the President that he veto any legislation 

that would authorize it. This Administration believes that the 

best interest of the American people and the oil and gas industry 

is served by a balanced policy consisting of promoting 

exploration and development, protecting our natural heritage, and 

fostering the development of conservation and alternative energy 

sources. So far the proponents of drilling have not offered to 

consider the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge System in the 

conte:·:t of an overall national energy policy, encompassing a 

review of alternative energy sources and the prospect for 

conservation. 

Instead, the proponents are asking us to offer up the last 

protected part of the Arctic coastline as part of a plan to 

e l iminate the deficit and balance the budget in seven years, 

instead of ten years as President Clinton has proposed. In 

effect, we are being asked to jeopardize an irreplaceable piece 

of our national heritage over a three year difference in budget 

projections by the people in green eyeshades. 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last protected 

fragment of the great coastal plain where America goes down to 

the polar ocean. More than 85% of the Arctic coastal plain has 

already been opened to oil e:·:ploration and development. The 

story of Prudhoe Bay in the central coastal plain is well known. 

Less known is that the entire coastal plain west from Prudhoe Bay 

2 
76 

to Icy Cape and :he shores of Slberia ~~ also designated for oil 

development, most of it within the Conc;::-essiona:ly designated 

Arctic National Petroleum Reserve. 

The oil companies could go west from Pr~dhoe Bay under e:d.sting 

law. Instead they are clamoring to go east, straight into the 

last protected fragment of the Arctic s:ope. Perhaps it is a 

sign of the times that certain segments of the oil and gas 

industry, emboldened by electoral changes, are now asking for 

everything, for the right to invade our last Arctic sanctuary for 

the sake, even by most optimistic estir..ates, of the equivalent of 

six months of national oil consumption. 

Recognition of :he unique wilderness character of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, and of the refuge's coastal plain goes 

back a long way. In 1959, Fred Seaton, the Eisenhower 

Administration Interior Secretary test~fied before the Senate 

calling the proposed Arctic National W:ldlife Range "One of the 

most ~agnificent wildlife and wilderness areas in North 

America ... a wilderness e::perience not duplicao:ed elsewhere." 

Another of my predecessors, Cecil Andrus, in 1978, encapsulated 

it most eloquently: "In some places, such as the Arctic Refuge, 

the wildlife and natural values are so ~agnificent and so 

enduring that they transcend the value of any mineral that may 

lie beneath the surface. Such minerals are finite. Production 

inevitably means changes whose impacts will be measured in 

geologic time in order to gain marginal benefits that may last a 

few years." 

It was true then, Mr. Chairman, and it remains true today. I 

spent some time in the refuge during my trip to Alaska in 1993. 

What I saw and heard and felt as I crossed the tundra and 

followed the streams up toward the mountains can hardly be 

3 
77 

described. The tundra, a thousand s~ades of emerald and ade, 

sparkled in the soft light of the midnight sun. On a field of 

cotton flowers and sa::ifrage, musk o::en circled to protect their 

calves as a pack of wolves stalked nea!·by. It was late summer 

and the caribou had already trekked southward into the passes of 

the Brooks Range; the tundra was already touched with the scarlet 

hues of autumn, and the snow geese would soon be coming down from 

Wrangell Island to fatten up before the long flight southward. 

One night at Peters Lake, I read the words of Barry Lopez: 

"Twilight lingers -- the ice floes, the caribou, the musk oxen, 

all drift -- the stillness, the pure light -- you can feel the 

silence stretching all the way to Asia." 

The Congress is now proposing to interrupt this ancient pageant 

of wildlife moving through the seasons of an enchanted landscape. 

Its action will inevitab.y shatter the delicate balance of land 

and life into a thousand fragments, like pan ice in the spring 

breakup. 

Mr. Chairman, it is easy to see why so many Americans want this 

special place protected. It is harder to understand why we would 

want to develop it -- because, of the many arguments that ~ave 

been made for development, none has stood the test of time. 

The proposal to develop oil in the Arctic Refuge has most often 

been justified on national security grounds. This argument was 

never very strong, for the simple reason that no single oil 

discovery, even a large one, can be e::pected to fundamentally 

alter our nation's oil security situation. 

History has shown that national efforts to improve energy 

efficiency and to buffer short term disruptions through the 

4 
78 

creation of the strategic petroleum reserve and other mechanisms 

have had much more impact on our oil security than have additions 

to domestic supply. 

This is so because U.S. production is limited largely by the 

world price of oil. As stated in a recent Commerce Department 

report on the issue, "The United States is a high-cost producer 

compared to other countries because we have already depleted our 

known low-cost reserves." 

The Administration recognizes the importance of U.S. energy 

security, and will continue to support steps that, as shown by 

past experience, can help us minimize the risks associated with 

short-term supply disruptions. We also continue to support a 

variety of supply enhancement and energy efficiency policies to 

help limit our long-term oil dependence. 

The environmental arguments traditionally made by supporters of 

development seem to have e::pired along with the national security 

argument. Proponents of develorment have consistently argued 

that drilling and producing oil on the fragile Arctic coastal 

plain can be accomplished without damage to the wildlife values 

for the protection of which the refuge was established. 

But this year, I note, your delegation has declared that the very 

name of the refuge -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge --

should be changed, so that the coastal plain -- the biological 

heart of one of America's greatest wildlife refuges -- would, in 

your new nomenclature, be called the "Arctic Oil Reserve." 

The American people will see right through this name change, Mr. 

Chairman, and will understand immediately what it really 

signifies: that even those who are dedicated to opening this 

area to the oil industry unders~and that to do so will be its 

death knell as a wildlife refuge. 

5 
79 

The Arctic Refuge is the only conserva~ion area in the Natio~ 

that provides a complete range of Arct1c ecosystems, funct1or,1ng 

in balance to perpetuate wildlife populations. The area offers 

more wildlife di ve!'si ty than any other !·egion of the Arctic, The 

Coastal Plain, as noted in the 1987 Legislative Environmental 

Impact Statement (LEIS), is the most biologically productive part 

of the refuge and the heart of the refuge's wildlife activity. 

The centerpiece of this living system, the Porcupine River 

Caribou Herd, depends upon the coastal plain for the most 

important part of its life cycle, for giving birth to its young, 

and harboring them until they are able to make the long journey 

south through the Brooks range to the interior. 

The 1987 LEIS, on the basis of which Secretary Hodel made his 

recommendation to lease the coastal plain, -contains a wealth of 

information on the potentially serious impacts to wildlife and 

habitat resources that are likely to oc::::ur from e::tensive oil and 

gas development of this fragile area. Biological studies since 

1987 have, if anything, enlarged our understanding of wildlife 

use of the coastal plain, including by caritou and polar bears, 

and confirmed the likelihood of significant impacts. There was 

no question, even in 1987, that full-scale development would 

devastate the area's wilderness character, and there is no reason 

to doubt that result now. 

For these and many other reasons, Mr. Chairman, it is the view of 

the Administration, from the President on down, that the wise and 

responsible course would be to continue to protect the coastal 

plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness, for 

its wilderness and wildlife values. 

Mr. Chairman, I must also tell you that, in the view of the 

Administration, the revenue estimate of $1.4 billion in receipts 

6 
80 

o~er a five year period is w~shful th~~~ing. In our view, this 

revenue projection is too high as a res~lt of four factors: 

o The State of Alaska has give~ every indication that it 

will challenge in court any revenue split other than 

the 90% share it believes 1t is guaranteed in the 

Alaska Statehood Act; 

o World oil prices are far below the levels prOJected in 

earlier estimates, thus increasing the necessary size 

of any viable commercial deposits; 

o Congress should take into account the fact that net 

returns to the Treasury from projected royalty income 

are likely to be s:gn1ficantly lowered by offsetting 

tax losses; and, as you heard at your earlier technical 

hearing, 

o New information regarding the geological structures 

uncerlying the coastal plain has led the USGS to 

conclude that earlier high estimates of petroleum 

resources should be revised downward. 

Let me review each of these factors in slightly more detail. 

The revenue projections fro~ proposed Arctic Refuge leasing and 

development assume that the ~ederal Go~ernment would share 

revenues with the State on a 50-SC bas~s. Current law, which is 

referenced in the Alaska Sta:ehood Act, gives Alaska 90% of 

Federal revenues from mlnera: leasing. The Department has long 

taken the position that Cong~ess has the authority to change this 

revenue split. The State of Alaska has long taken the opposite 

position; namely, that the 90-10 split was in effect a commitment 

made as part of the Statehood compact that cannot be modified by 

the Congress without Alaska's consent. 

7 
81 

The State of Alaska is currently trying to persuade the Federal 

courts that its position is correct. Its claim is part of an 

omnibus lawsuit the State has bro·.:ght seekir.g $29 billion in 

damages from the Federal treasur:,· :'or assor:ed wro~.gs allegedly 

committed by the Federal Government. While the Department has 

full confidence in the legat position we are defending, any 

litigation involves some element of uncertainty, which has to be 

taken into account in making revenue projections from leasing of 

the Arctic Refuge. 

As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, previous versions of legislation 

authorizing the development of the coastal plain have contained 

provisions to prevent the State of Alaska from bringing suit to 

force a 90% revenue split for the State. Considering the fact 

that, if successful, such a suit would reduce the Federal revenue 

split to 10%, which even in an optimistic projection would amount 

to only $280 million in the budget period for which Congress has 

assumed receipts of $1.4 billion, the Administration presumes 

that Congress would include simi_ar language in any leasing 

authorization. 

Your revenue estimates are also questionable because of changes 

in the economics of oil. The most notable and important change 

has been in oil prices and ot:r e::pectations for future oil 

prices. As Figure 1 shows, oil prices in real or constant 

dollars have declined since 1984 instead of increasing as was 

then forecast. 

~urthermore, oil prices projected for 2000 have dropped nearly 

50% since preparation of the 1987 study of the 1002 area. 

o In 1987 when the Reagan Administration proposed leasing 

the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge, oil prices in 

2000 were e::pected to be S33 (in 1984 dollaz:s). 

8 
82 

Adjusted fer inflatlJn a:~.:J ;o::pressed in 1995 doclars, 

this oil price assu~ption f)r 2000 would be $38.£0. 

o Now in 1995, hcwe·:e:, oil pr:ces in 2~JO ano: e::pected 

to be less than $20.00 ($19.13 in 1995 dollars is the 

ave~age of High and Low World Oil Price Projections 

from EIA Annual Energy Outlook, 1995). 

This sharp decline in oil price e::pectations must inevitably 

affect the willingness of industry to uwest in e;:pensive new 

prospects, no matter how attractive. Clearly, ~t should give 

pause for thought regarding the revenues being shown for Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge leas:ng in the current proposal. 

An additional uncertainty regarding the projected revenue arises 

from the fact that the net ga1n to the Treasury is very much 

affected by the relationship between bonuses, royalties, State 

severance and conservatic:~ ta::es and the State's share of Federal 

leasing revenues. The State of A~aska ~as many opportunities to 

take a piece of this pie. Furthermore, since bonuses, royalties 

and State ta::es are deduct1ble e::penses in computing Federal 

income taxes, the net gain to :he U.S. Treasury may turn out to 

be much less than the estimated revenue from sale of these 

leases. 

Given all of these factors, Mr. Chairman, I urge this Congress to 

reconsider its rush to lease the coasta! plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

Opening the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling is the 

equivalent of offering Yellowstone National Park for geothermal 

drilling, or calling for bids to construct hydropower dams in the 

Grand Canyon. We can surely f1nd a better way to both produce 

energy and conserve our natural heritage. 

9 
88 

TESTIMONY OF 

COMMISSIONER JOHN SHIVELY 

STATE OF ALASKA, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

BEFORE THE 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

REGARDING 

LEASING OF THE 1002 STUDY AREA OF THE COASTAL PLAIN 

TO OIL EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT 

August 3, 1995 

Thank you and good morning Mr. Chairman and members of the· 

Committee. For the record, my name is John Shively, and I am here 

on behalf of Alaska Governor Tony Knowles in my capacity as the 

Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources. 

The Knowles Administration welcomes this opportunity to share an 

Alaska perspective on the issue of responsible development in the 

Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). We 

believe that opening ANWR for responsible oi production is vital to 

the well-being of Alaska and the nation. 

The debate about oil and gas development in A.NWR is, rightfully, a 

national one because the issues at stake impact the entire nation. At 

the same time, because Alaskans would be the most affected by 

development of the Refuge, we have considered this issue very 

carefully. 

Alaskans have a long history of being responsible stewards of our 

environment. Whether it is managing our abundant fisheries or 

producing oil and gas at Prudhoe Bay, we have a record of 

accomplishments of which we are justifiably proud. 

Alaskans genuinely care about our environment -- it comes from 

living in such a spectacular and special place. Alaskans also are 

dependent on our environment and natural resources to provide jobs 

and to sustain the industries that fuel our economy -- fishing, 

mining, forestry, tourism, and oil and gas. Alaskans have achieved a 

responsible and balanced approach to protecting the environment 

while providing for our economic needs. 

Testimoay or Commlsstoaer Jobo Sblnly • Page 1 
84 

That is why a vast majority of Alaskans support the opening of the 

coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas 

exploration and development. We know that oil development in 

ANWR can be done right and that it would generate many benefits. 

In short, opening ANWR would be good for the nation and good for 

people, and can be done in a way that minimizes adverse 

environmental impacts. 

Good for the Nation 

ANWR oil development can play a major and positive role in 

addressing important national and international issues. It is not a 

parochial Alaska issue (though we would like our views to be given 

careful consideration in the debate on this matter). 

Energy Policy. While conservation and alternative energy sources 

must be pursued vigorously, petroleum, which accounts for about 

40% of our national energy supply, must be a principal component of 

any national energy policy. Development of si"gnificant domestic 

resources is a logical part of such a policy. Experts agree that ANWR 

represents the nation's most promising unexplored petroleum 

province, with an excellent chance of containing one or more gia 1\t oil 

fields. 

National Economy. According to an economic allalysis prepared by 

Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates (WEFA) in May 1990, 

ANWR development could raise the U.S. gross national product by 

$50.4 billion and increase employment nationwide by 735,000 jobs 

by the year 2005. The study found that every state would benefit 

economically in supplying the billions of dollars of equipment and 

services needed to develop new fields on the coastal plain of ANWR. 

National Security. In December 1994, the U.S. Department of 

Commerce issued a report to the President which concluded that 

rising oil imports present a threat to U.S. national security. The 

report found that ". . . the reduction in exploration, dwindling 

reserves, falling production, relatively high cost of U.S. production, 

and the resulting low rates of return on investments all point toward 

a contraction of the U.S. petroleum industry and increasing imports 

from OPEC sources. Growing import dependence, in turn, increases 

U.S. vulnt>r~l-i ity to a supply disruption." 

TestlmoDy of CommlssloDer JobD Shively • Page l 
85 

To illustrate this trend, in 1973, the year of the Arab oil embargo, 

the U.S. was dependent on· foreign oil for 36% of our needs. In 1991, 

the year of Desert Storm, the U.S. imported 46% of our oil from 

foreign sources. Today, the U.S. is dependent on foreign countries for 

more than 50% of our oil. Furthermore, the Department of Energy 

estimates that in 2010 we will be over 60% dependent on foreign oiL 

It is important to remember that the Persian Gulf war was fought, in 

part, to protect global oil supplies. 

North Slope oil production has accounted for about 25 percent of the 

total daily domestic production since shortly after production began 

there in 1977. However, since the beginning of Prudhoe Bay field's 

production decline in 1988, North Slope production has declined 

about 24 percent from its historic high to less than 1.6 million 

barrels per day currently. This decline has occurred despite the 

addition of four new fields since 1993 and aggressive exploration 

elsewhere across the North Slope over the last several years. North 

Slope production would have declined 31% since 1988 if these new 

fields had not been brought on line .. 

Absent major new oil discoveries from ANWR, that trend is expected 

to continue, with production falling approximately 10 percent per 

year. Oil development in ANWR can help reduce this dependence on 

foreign oil and help bridge the gap until alternative energy sources 

can contribute a greater percentage of our needs. 

Balance of Trade. Oil development in ANWR can help address the 

U.S. trade deficit by reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil. The U.S. 

is the largest debtor nation in the world. According to the U.S. 

Department of Commerce, the largest single trade deficit commodity 

is crude oil and refined prOducts totaling over a $40 billion deficit 

annually. 

In fact, in the latest reporting month (May 1995), the U.S. 

Department of Commerce reported that the trade deficit reached an 

all-time high. The record deficit was primarily attributable to oil and 

petroleum products, which accounted for over 43% of the trade 

imbalance. 

TestlmODJ of Comai .. leDtr JobD Slaivelr • r... 3 
86 

Good for People 

Development of oil and gas in ANWR would enhance the quality of 

life for Alaskans and all Americans and could provide a source of 

energy that would literally fuel the economy. 

Jobs and Families. Development of ANWR could create as many as 

735,000 jobs, according to the Wharton study. These jobs WOt!ld 

benefit workers and families in every state of the unio.n. · 

All 50 states have received revenues from the development of 

Alaska's existing North Slope oil fields. In fact, $22.5 billion was 

spent for salaries, materials, design and engineering services and 

pre-development construction of production modules by North Slope 

lessees during the period 1980-1994 alone. These numbers do not 

include the significant pre-development investments made for 

development of the Prudhoe Bay field, the nation's largest oil field, 

prior to the start-up of the field. Nor do they include many of the 

pre-production expenditures related to the Kuparuk River field, the 

nation's second largest oil field, incurred prior to its December 1981 

start-up. 

It is worth noting that seventy-eight percent of the $22.5 billion was 

spent outside Alaska. By way of examples: California received more 

than $3.2 billion; Texas received more than $6.8 billion; Washington 

received almost $1.7 billion and Minnesota received almost $84 

million. 

Government Revenues. Increased jobs and a more stable supply 

of oil due to development of ANWR would stimulate the economy. 

Increased economic activity, in turn, would increase tax revenues. 

Combined with lease-sale receipts from companies bidding for rights 

to explore and produce oil in ANWR, annual rents, production 

royalties, and taxes would add billions of dollars to the federal and 

state treasuries, thereby reducing the need for other sources of 

government revenue. 

Minimizing the Environmental Impact 

Careful development of the Refuge, under strict regulatory 

guidelines, can provide the nation a vital resour:-c while minimizing 

the environmental impact on the coastal plain and its wildlife. 

Testimony or Commissioner John Shively • Page 4 
87 

Success at Prudhoe Bay. The experience at Alaska's existing 

North Slope oil fields provides strong evidence that 'oil and gas 

development at nearby ANWR (approximately 70 miles to the east of 

Prudhoe Bay field) would pose little threat to the ecology of the 

coastal plain. In addition to the technological improvements made as 

a result of the development of Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope 

fields, government, industry and the public have learned much about 

managing oil and gas activities over the past twenty years of 

development experience in a way that safeguards the surrounding 

environment and wildlife. 

Compatibility with Nature. The record reveals that 

notwithstanding more than two decades of oil and gas development 

on the North Slope, air quality remains good, drilling wastes have 

been well managed, and wildlife and their habitat have been 

minimally impacted. Most notably, the Central Arctic caribou herd, 

which occupies the Prudhoe Bay area throughout the year, has grown 

steadily from a population of 6,000 in 1978, the year after North 

Slope oil production began, to over 23,000 by 1994. Just as 

importantly, the Eskimos who reside on the North Slope and who are 

dependent on the resources of the region are among the strongest 

supporters for the development of ANWR. 

The State recognizes that part of the Refuge is an important area for 

calving and rearing of young calves from the Porcupine Caribou hard. 

The State is committed to ensuring that development in ANWR is 

done in an ecologically responsible manner and that productivity of 

the Porcupine Caribou herd is maintained. Experience on the North 

Slope demonstrates that mitigation measures exist to minimize 

disturbance to this area and ensure its continued protection. 

Science, Technology and Human Ingenuity. Experience and 

technological advancements made in North Slope oil fields mean that 

the amount of land needed for oil field facilities in ANWR would be 

vastly reduced relative to the size of all previous North Slope oil 

fields. This evolution in technology minimizes the "footprint" of oil 

activities. In fact, the Department of the Interior has estimated that 

less than one-tenth of 1 percent of the entire refuge, and less than 1 

percent of the coastal plain, would likely be affected by oil and gas 

development. That means that more than 99.9% of ANWR would be 

unaffected by petroleum operations. For comparative purposes. 

Testimony of Commissioner John Shively • Page S 
88 

ANWR is approximately the size of South Carolina, and the area 

directly affected by oil and gas development in ANWR is estimated to 

be equivalent in size to Dulles International Airport in Washington, 

D.C 

Addressing Other Environmental Needs. In addition to 

providing needed energy, oil from ANWR could generate billions of 

dollars for state and federal governments to use on important social 

and environmentaf needs such as enhancing parks and refuges 

nationwide. 

Conclusion 

The State of Alaska recognized that in some ways the public policy 

debate about what to do with the coastal plain of ANWR is complex. 

At the same time, we think the issue can be framed fairly simply: 

can we extract a vital resource needed by people and the economy, 

while at the same time safeguarding the other resources in the 

region? The answer in the minds of most Alaskans is clearly yes. 

We would hope that as others consider this question, they will 

evaluate the merits of the arguments and not be caught up in the 

inflammatory rhetoric surrounding the issue. For example, you are 

likely to hear how estimated oil reserves in ANWR would provide 

only 200 days of U.S. consumption of oil. 

This is neither accurate nor representative of ANWR's real, potential 

contribution. No giant oil field of three to five billion, or even thirty 

billion barrels of recoverable oil will supply 100 percent of U.S. oil · 

consumption for 200 days. Oil field development simply does not 

work that way in Alaska, or elsewhere. Rather, giant fields are 

distinguished by their ability to sustain their daily production for 

many years. For instance, during the first 10- to 15-year field 

production period, a single, giant ANWR discovery could contribute 

over 0.5 billion barrels per year to total domestic production, or 

nearly 50 percent of the total expected domestic oil production by 

the year 2005. 

Another argument often advanced to refute the need for opening 

ANWR is that the country does not need the oil that may be in ANWR 

because there is a large reserve at West Sak. This argument lacks 

merit for at least two reasons. One, West Sak, which was discovered 

in 1969, is a shallow, low temperature, heavy oil reservoir that has 

not proven to be economically recoverable. And two, even if oil were 

Testimony of Commissioner John Shively • Page 6 
89 

recoverable from West Sak, domestic demand for oil indicates that 

the development of ANWR and West Sak reservoirs are not mutually 

exclusive propositions. 

It is also important to keep in mind that the time to open ANWR is 

now, because the window of opportunity for developing the area 

economically is closing fast. According to a report by the U.S. 

Department of Energy, the North Slope fields curreptly using the 

Trans-Alaska pipeline are expected to produce so little oil by the 

year 2009 that . the pipeline could be abandoned. 

The huge costs of either restoring an abandoned pipeline or 

maintaining an unused one make these two options unfeasible. 

Therefore, since the oil companies would need approximately 1 b-15 

years from the time of Congressional approval to produce oil, that 

leaves very little time to secure Congressional authorization to open 

ANWR for oil development. 

Finally, we think it is noteworthy that many of the same arguments 

being made in opposition to opening ANWR were raised at the time 

Prudhoe Bay development was being debated, and yet we believe 

most people would acknowiedge that Prudhoe Bay has been, a ·d 

continues to be, a success story. 

Let's begin writing the next success story by opening ANWR to cil 

and gas exploration, and if we are lucky, for development and 

production. 

Testimoay of Commlssioaer Jolla Shively - Page 7 
l ~ .... ' k. ... , )\\ •• "" ::,:\'"::;·.~!:: 

Dear Representative: 

90 

~-- - ~?' 

STATE OF ALASKA 

OF:I=tCE. 7Jl' *,..E ::iO'.'E:RNOR 

Jl """l 

June 19, 1995 

I understand you may be voting this year on matters related to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. As 

the recently elected Democratic Governor for the State of Alaska, I would like to share with 'ou an 

Alaskan perspective on this issue. In short, I believe opening the Arctic National Wildlife R;fuge for 

responsible oil development is vital to the economic weU-being of Alaska and the nation. 

I am as deeply con<:erned about maintaining the land Alaskans love as I am about maintaining jobs so we 

can live here. Alaska has always been resource dependent. We have maintained rich fisheries. We have 

built a timber industry while managing '""'' ' •cing buffer zones around our"~a!mon streams. We have mined our generou ~r. and other minerals with greater 

environmental awareness than any other rogton on oartJl. " • nave the best cold-weather oil drilling 

recovery technology in the world. We have two-thirds of the United States' parkland within our borders. 

Despite this fact, Alaska has created the largest state park system in the countty. 

Alaskans understand bener than anybody the importance of treating this land as our true savings account. 

paying dividends from generation to generation. We also do not fear harvesting or extracting the 

resources found within. As Native Americans have done for 10,000 years, Alaskans will harvest what we 

can with respect for the land. 

This is the auitudc Alaska brings to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. There is no bener time than 

now to open the refuge to drilling and to do it right. While I am on watch as governor, I will work to 

strengthen the economy of Aluka. lessen the nation's dependence on foreign oil and, most importantly, 

maintain this land loved by 600,000 Alaskans and countless others who view our northern beauty only in 

their mind'. eye. 

I strongly urge all Americans to support environmentally responsible development within the Coastal 

Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 
91 

:r. Gu tO · · ...,. es pm1on 

t• by George N Ahmaogal<.. . Sr . I.IJ, .·, ,, :; 'P• lio' uyh 

North Slope residents welcome oil industry 

ihe cecole or tr.e ArctiC l"'ave an ageless tradJIJOn of 

'ely<ng on the .ana and sea to CtOVIde the casiC neces!lttes ··some Americans have voiced concer~s 

at our subSIStence way ol l'1fe. Ourwl'lalers and hunters nave 1 1 

always maaethe mosteHtclent use ot nmrtea resourceo. ana that the coastal plain of ANWR is a pnstme 

they nave always taker. care of tne land so tn e~rgranoc ild en 

could continue the trad1t1ons. wilderness that should be closed off forever 

In the 2oth century. hOwever. our ability to oractlce self· t h · · reliance came under tncreao•ng pressure. E•P'Orers. traders 0 uman actiVIty. But this is no unpopulated. 

ana settlers replaced' our subSistence economy w•th a cash· untouched wilderness. It is our homeland. based system and explo•ted th• whale. tur and IVOry re· 

sources or our regton. We have lived here and used the land for With the diSCO'Ifery of oil in our land '" 1968 and the 

establishment of tne Notlh Slope Borough in t972. we...,. thousands of years, and we will conti'hue to 

able. to enter the new economy and rega1n the atulity to do SO." 

monJtOr ano safeguard ttte use of our resources. 

From modeS! beginnings. the Noflh Slope Borough llU 

evofved 1nto a moc2em municipal govemtMM provjding Mr· 

vK:M never before ava~abte in the Arctic. Our sehoot distriet Our peep• have an agetess ruoect and concert\ !or ,... 

provides vocatJon&l al1d acaoemtc education fOf" young and land. With centu,..s of petspective, we "'" ow :he .,,1 . o4d ahke. Borough hMitn cliniCs provlde mocs.m medica! totnttday be ;one. We share a de~rm•nl.tlon to orctec1 OI.Of 

servtees to residents ot even the smaMnt VIllages. 1'hl l..,dandthetraditionllsubaislencelifesryle ,ts;..ccorts !cr !t\e 

Mun•c•oal Setvtces Department operates water. sewer and benefit ot future generations. 

electrlc ut1l1bes. plows roaas ana runways. maintains sannary We IIIIo '- a .--.y«~ ..--g of ""' ooteollal 

lanai ills <lnd provides bus seNICII. O!he< bCJ<ougll oepar!· hazard~ ol Oil IIIIa _...,., As" modem go'l9<r'mern. we nave 

ments provtde police an<:t firt proteerion, search and reecue exM:iled cu ~powers to hoij the 011 1f'!OUStty :o stnct 

SONICeS. and rental housing. ~~and public- stanaaros. 

I con SlaiO ~ f111 the people o111e Nort1 Slope The,_ have been an unqualifi.a success. Our fish 

Bct!>ugll O<lPPQft thlt ~ olthlt oil il'lci.-y n wr- n. and wildlife,_,_ arellounoning. For oxampre. !he Central 

-e-touplofallanand~inh-l)loil An:tic caoibau herd llU ~11om 3.000 1n 1912 to 23.000 

oi/W#R. No1111Sicpooinaon.ty~--~ today. Many-withlull·limejobSusetne.r vacat•ons to 

"' our people a1t12 to r:ur · W. lhoulcl o:Jnhle ru gather~ food not far 11om tl>eir wor1< >~ es . 

sua:esofulpolieyol~~wr- AsNativtlpeople.wehavealwayshodto ll gr.• or t~ "1 

The WIS<Iom of our--u. the value o1 hunting to determine our own future. Self-determ•natton was at me 

where game ia moot p1en1111a. UlteW!ee. ~ ......_ - fa< heart of thlt land claims Mlllement, and •t 1s central 10 the 

our.,.ocntD-oilln., __ _,tlteU.S. s--, ilaue of ANWR -~ u - · We are me people 

oftllelntenorllUidentlfletl•tllecountly'sbMtpnJIIIK!fa< whoM 11.- Willie moot~ t>y oil development '" 

"" Pll~m depoait:l. AHWR. and we beHeve our <tMifft •nd tne evfCience of ovr 

SomeAmeric:anlrtave-canoemetnatthec:oalll ""'"~ llloulc:II)NYall. 

plainofANWRiaaprilllnewit_tltai_Qe_ The PMt ~~he,. enab40d the Nortn SlOpe 

off for- to hUnWI actM!y. Bul tltie il no ~. llotougiiiO help ill -enjoy a !We whiCII. wh•le corn· 

untouched-· It ia our-Wen-- ,_ 10 our~. had long been dented to us. As 

'*--.-the land fa<-of~. and.,. Will """'- e., oil piOdUction a.ctine41. we lear tnis new lite 

continue to do eo. could diiMtpp.r M f1llrl 81 the AtcliC ...,.,.r. toav~ng res•· 

UniiM rnoet Amencane. - do not have tl'le option r:i den• of the Noflh ~ .,._ egain out in the cold. 

WOIIcing in a vatiely of -· ~ing people We in l1e Nort1 Slcpo ~-oi ~ 1n tne 

cru-.g ~ ANWR ~~-c1eny.,. our -l)loiloiAHWAawronvdiJIIIIIU1II\I"'"""""""buiiOW'9 

ottly ~far~.~ p11Wic1ing a~ anfle-le•otl1e ... 20yeMalti210-~N 

- oiiMng far the llrlltirne in our~. ;: (~-oiiiWtGand-'*'1! inthltllndoiO<¥ .,.,...,.. 

• May 1M I MSOURC£ REVIEW Pogs ' 
::' ,,

.. 

0 

"' ... 

.. 

g 

... 

il: 

~ ·.• 

~ ;:: 

i 

•i'i " • 

•·: ~!l~~.{j·~~:: ' 

••• C!h 

When it comes to development of the Arctic

Alaska's Natives aren't the ones with cold fee

1•11 muu· mlufm,lll"ll illlll:ll 1 Al t ht ~mTf. •11?,11 8 Sltft'l. ui r ). !1 I, 1\Jll nf.l~ . t\l.t!l'w PJII'/1 ',{, I /J•1J/ 
98 

Alaska Federation of Natives, Inc. 

ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC. 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

RESOLUTION 95-05 

'l'U'l'.oll: A USOI.otiTIOIII UQU])IIIIQ DBCI.oiHIIIIQ S'l'Aft UVBWIS A111D 

1110ll'1'B StoOPS OIL PRODtJC'l'IOIII AIIID '1'0 DBD '1'0 OPD 'l'HB 

COAS'l'AL PLAIH AUA 01' AIIIWJt '1'0 lllm'1' '1'U ClliTICAL HtnU.R 

R&BDS OJ' ALASitA' S D'l'IVII PBOPLII 

WHEREAS; the members of the Alaska Congressional Delegation, as representatives of the people and in their capacity as newly elected Chairmen of the Senate and House ,- Committees having jurisdiction over matters related to 

Alaska Native people and the management of the energy and natural resources on public lands, have requested 

the Alaska Federation of Natives' Board of Directors to 

adopt a resolution in support of the opening of the 

Coastal Plain; and 

WHEREAS; the Governor of the State of Alaska has requested the 

Alaska Federation of Natives' Soard of Directors to 

adopt a resolution in support of the opening of the 

Coastal Plain of ANWR, with a proviso for the 

protection of the Porcupine Caribou Herd and the 

subsistence needs for the Native people of Alaska; and 

WHEREAS; the Alaska State Legislature has adopted a resolution 

calling upon the U.S. Congress to adopt legislation 

that would open the Coastal Plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge to responsible oil and gas leasing and development, with protection for the 

Porcupine Caribou Herd and the subsistence needs for 

the Native people of Alaska; and 

WHEREAS; North Slope oil production has declined from more than 

two million S/D in 1990, to less than 1.6 million BID 

today; and 

15n "C" SUm, Suile 100 c ~ Abska 99501 o Pb.(907) 274-3611 FAX(907)276-7989 
?aqe 2 

Resolution 95-05 

94 

WHEREAS; revenues from oil production have been providing about 

85 percent of the State ' s revenues to fund programs to 

meet the educational, social welfare, and other needs 

of Alaska's people; and 

WHEREAS; the small 1 . 5 million acre Coastal Pl ain study area of 

ANWR, adjacent of Prudhoe Bay and other producing 

fields is the nation ' s best prospect for major new oil 

and gas discoveries; and 

WHEREAS; opening the Coastal Plain area to an environmentally 

responsible and carefully regulated progr~ of 

environmental oil and qas leasing would provide 

important revenue benefits to the U.S. and to the State 

of Alaska; and 

WHEREAS; opening the Coastal Plain will create new jobs for 

Alaska Native people, new contracting opportunities for 

Native-owned companies, and stimulate the State's local 

and regional economies; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Board of 

Directors of the Alaska Federation of Natives calls 

upon the Congress of the United States to _adopt 

legislation to open the Coastal Plain area of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to an environmentally 

responsible program of oil and gas leasing and 

development. 

Adopted this 13th day of June, 1995. 

CORPORATE SEAL: 

Julie E. Kitka 

President 
rl 1-Hfif JitN~f 'i r 1 r;.t IJ.K.~fl'-1= ~ .. l ffJr~.s lJ

•IU~ f~Llft i! Uli I.J ~~! h~ ~lfp 

~-r;:• 'l''''H 8 pl . ~ & ;: 3 '9 -9 a ~! ~ !0 e. liri ft 

i n " s o o o o -· ;;- .:a if· 

~~· &fl{ • f. a~~~'. 11\! ~ s-B S: ~. il ~ ~ ~. 8 s·c:_ (zJ

I ._1J Ia .ao • ... o c:: o 1:1 c.§ ':I cr a e ~ J · 

A f g. 

8

·1-1 '" • !-J . ~ ~ B ..... 9. ~.:: ii" g : . 

•• r;;· .- w.t r .,. ..., en ~ - s;: • 
U.S. Oil Procluctl•n & Foreig

70r---------------------------

60 

-

~ 50 I U.S. Foreign Dependency 

t 1 \ a.. 

40 

30~,-~~~~-r-r,-~~~~~-r

1973 1978 1983 1988 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy 

• Gross Imports as a percenl of domestic consumpllon 
~ Cl 

"" 

~ 

.!!! 

2:! 

I.'C 

"" 

Ol 

c: 

.S! 

:::: 

:1i 

U.S. Middle East lmpo• £s/Aias

>; 1994 

I 

Total 

Persian 

Gulf 

Saudi 

Arabia 

Kuwait 
~~~.. 

~,.. 

HuUar ' IH'IIt in V:u·h Sl :•h' fur Nu.-t h SluJW t 

I r.M~IAHA l _,_, 

·r=· ' '\ 1, ,'<. llillu!lo i l'l!oC JI 

Hf)('!Jti 

1.\MOfA 

9.9 

m~ ( \ ..---[ ----

---- -- -- _ •;~~ wvt~ 

... v .... I 9 1 -

'\ tn ... l 

'•. 166.3 

''-"""""'\ -------- 3.243.6 > 

"""'- 9.7 

COlOflAOO 

293.2 

l"lw"'' 1lntlnt' indmh· tIll.!' hUUuu rl•1

AU~ ·u . mul t 'unun • untl :loUl.1J hilli1•1• , , ... m

l ltl'\' I• Sf '1.11111•. nil la,t·.; " "'' ' fill nlli•·•· ln

;tlllll :lh.,l lu " .. in~ ,. ' l:llf' , lw~ :tl"' ' ,

.. -
/ 

/ 

/ 

735,000 Potential New Jobs if ANWR Is Opene

~7 J·. 

\ ,<.J 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

"·-o· -... • ,.~""" 

(' 

f_, 

/ 

{ OA t. 7.0 

I. 

~ i_,. 

r 

CA 

.... 

All Numbers Are In Thousands of Job

I ~Aia•kn:tt1/2Sall• I 

"' 
100 

Potential -.plo,-ent Created by a.wR O.Yelo~at• 

State 2005 

Alllka 12795 

Alabama 10392 

Arkansat 5464 

Arizona 10447 

California 79793 

Colorado 10577 

[Connecticut 10989 

Delaware 2032 

D.C. 2516 

Florida 33878 

f<leorala 18374 

Hawaii 2702 

Idaho 2368 

Iowa 6662 

Illinois 33375 

Indiana 15622 

Kansas 7183 

Kentucky 12247 

Louisiana 14846 

Massachusetts 20260 

Marvland 13912 

rg-alne 13450 

fMiehlaan 25014 

Minnesota 13489 

IMissourt 14138 - MlsslsalDDl 5918 

Montana 2126 

North Cerollna 19389 

Nebraska 4006 

rNew H8riiiihlre !3898 

NeW.IerMY 2204e 

iNewMexlco 4869 

4726 

NewYottt 47824 

Ohio 31642 

Okl8horna 11268 

IOrtaon 6886 

I Pennlvlvanla 134279 

Rhocta ISland 2919 

iSOuth Cii'OIIna 19421 

SOutlfDalcota 1771 

!Ten,..... 133M 

*!llti.mates are bUa:i on peak HHt pr:Oib::tion in the yur 2005. 

*'Ut\aslca is expected to recti its peak of 38,265 naw jCibl in the yur 2000. 

Ptloe 1 
101 

'Tild8 itC II 

lil'l 14! 

[1S IIJ 

11'1 

i1: i7 

111 4 

IWett nr nm• 171 

12! 

iTOTAL 

Scw:ce: "'l'he Econanic IIIC*:t of ANWR I"*Yelop!Wit," pnpared by 

The -~ Greup, Hay 1990. 
102 

AI llle request or ll>c American Peuolcum lllltllutc (API), 'l'b4l WEFA OIOIIp iiU prepared tills report"" 1M 

economic eku Of !lie lleoelopiDCIIt Of tba All:llC NatfOoal Wll4llfe ReAl~& (ANWR) for oU aa<l natul'll g.u 

pt0411ctloa. Tile tt114y analyza the fllturc of U.S. oU aDd au apJo.-tloa aDd procluaiOa aDd tba spedllc !Ill pace 

that the d""elopment or the ANWR rcalon ..out~ blve; !lie repon abo r.umlna the U.S. ma~oomic ell'"""' 

of ANWR d""elopmecu. 

Slncz !973, petroleum markecs b..,. heea wlllpllWOIII by 1 ICricl of llllfo-.,..nu that l!a-e ca...u ec:>nomtc 

INtabWI)'. 'l'b4l CIII1'CIIt state Of !lie llldustry rci!IICII tile aftmMtll of till& dliiU~biiiZfna C)'Cie. Erplonot!on for 

oil IM aarural cu In lbe U.S., in terms of uplomory ... us drilled. more tl!an ~uble4 be~WCan 1973 an4 1981. 

kt low real oU and natu..-1 au prices slncc 1916 have led 10 1 coiiiPM Ill ID\'CIUIICIII ia productlva apaoty. 

Se!Jmle crploratlon and t!& activity In the U.S. baoc fallen to poii·WU lows. Moreover, repladn& the oil 

consumctl Is IIIO!t 4IIIIC11ll DOW 111111 It - ill 1973. w!tlllho ra~~ltthat U.S. ell procluetfosl COiltlnues to decline 

llcaclily. ilaYIII& alrcacly fallllllly U 1111111o11 bblldly anot 111 ret:Pt peal Ia wly 1916. 

Low real oU aM aatural ps prl- alo•& wldl matllluln& JlllWI~ Ill -.csoaUc KIMty era also stlmolatln& 

lllerwed d..,llll. U.S. perrot.11111 p!OCIIICI consumptloll iiU IIICI'CUCd bJ 2 mWioD biiWay since 19&3 and " 

-rill& lhl lll&b ......... Of tba laiC 19'701. AI 1 retlllt Of JIVMII Ill ~ ..... dedlllla& production. U.S. 

illlport rcllaaca has apa11ded rtpillly Ia ,_.,, ,.an. and pauoloum baponam 1 1111jor Q)!ltltllutor to tho tJ.S. 

tndl 4elldt. 

0.W the 20-)ut forecut period .......... tba lll>il)o _, U, INIIda - .......... tO ............ OPEC Ia 

.. ..- oo rapln .... .,.. - tba oa IMIIIM lllllilll t11t1 -'J l9liCII. Rill 011 pliCa WIU rise pl<lully 

ci'IMI 11M GDII.IM of 11M ._. tO m1l!ll .. 2001). ltiiJ ell pn. art UI......S 10 CDtttlllllll risilll at I SlOIOtf 

Ill& bqoad 2000, r.clafq S)$111111 bJ 2010. Tlla '--.. - pn. - 011 dellllnd JIOW!h 10 t\Qiio tO 

only .1"16/ft tom ltf0.2000. l'foa.OPEC oU tllpp!MI deciiM p'ldiiiiiJ a- 2!1 MMBD 10 2.6 MMBO d~rinJ 

.IIIII patod. laHia& tO u '-Ill OP!C Olllput Of -rly 1 MMBD. 

lLllle U.S., will\ -1, aliCiat IIIII IIJ!dro -lliktla& 11 Mil S-6 qllldrlllloo IIIIo Of lllc:Nmelllal tupply, 

~- aM Ulllral P' wiJI M .W 1111 10 IUppiJ &a ~ 01 6-10 .,...rrtllloiiiK .. 011 tba aqviYII•IIt 
103 

or ),!•S.l million bbV4ay. It iS clear that C~ITtftl trcn<la ID 4011\Citlc uplOtiiiOn and dt'•<!opmen< acth1ry 

ftOI support cumru lcYttb Of OIIIP"I, let aiOH ~- of IIIIi! IIIIJIIII.dt. As I ICIIIII, the incre.ulr.S i•,> 

&.rwe.tll clomelle 111pply aid amall<l m~&~t bt ftu.l by lllpt llllpotll, or it tlll< bt •:lo5cd b)' tucs<anl!aHy 

blll'tt rul pt1<:& U.S. aet oU lmporu are 1~111 apec!ed to 11M to 1.$ MMliO l.n 2JXKl &n4 11 MMBO In 2010. 

Sap~ ancl Apprwcll 

'nit appromtlllttly 1.$ mlllloli·KN -1 plllll pottiOll of lilt ANWR raana the lkauron Su hu ~eu 

14entii!Cid u ~l&bly praapea.IW fer the tlplllcut acc~mlllatloa ot ott and &U· To determine the impact or 

ANWR d...,elcpiMIII, we simulated lbe WEFA -nomaurc modell of the worlcl oil market an4 the U.S. 

tCIOJIOIIIY tor tbe per1od 19119 10 2010. uar ..rio~~~ -rloa tot tll8 <kNtloptntnt of ANWR reourc.e.s, an<l we 

mmptrllll til ... tlmulllloll re~utq 011111 et:>rrtlpon41na rcrerenea I:IM slllllllallo!ll In wlllell ANWil. 4e>elopmtnt 

4oet IIOt oc.wr. We cumlud ftliO ANWR devtiOpllltnt Kenartos, ccnespondlnJ 10 dt'<CO\'ertu totalln& ).23 

tllltoo tomll Ill 1118 'lOw _. all4 9..U blllloll btmll ill tile "III&JI -·· n. 111&11 we II des<:rlbed In somt 

llctaU 'OIIIllln 11111 repon. All stmulauons 111 4uClibe4 In aa appe~~dbt 10 tilt repon. If ftl)lor~n and 

4c'wtlopmcn1 ot ANWR II SIICC~~Uflll, prod.actiOII It apectllll to btp11 durlna tho llle l990t a1 clle urllat, '!"'Ils 

II tt a limo •lie• ci1 markeu are p~ 10 be tlpt. 

MculltOI of 1118 IIIIJIICI of ANWR iiMIOpmcnt 06 workl all prl- lilt U.S. IUerotCIOt.omy (lnctudlnt or 

emplaJtMM, a114 lilt trUe 4dclt). elld ..,.,.p!cll tq1ons of tile U.S. ue NJICfl.._ In additiOn. a ftumbcr. 

of tlltlllll& *'Uitoa ,.,.,. ru to ttsl 1M JtftSIIM~ of tlltM -~res 10 lbl marltat en\'lronmtnc wltblll wMclt 

tiiCII 4-ropm.t -14 occur. n- allcmatt cu• lnchaded "'rlaclcn lntbe 1-1 of warld ell prka an4 !Itt 

-lftaet of u oU s11ppl)' dlsrvpcloll. n.-lltttnltlvc cu.a m allo delcflbtd Ill aa appu41lt to •h• rtpotL 

The prlnelpelma=-IIOIIIIC ell'ecU of ANWR 4MIOpnMM&rlle tro• 1111 4frea &114 tn41rut crrects or such 

dl¥clopmt111 ill Clpiii41J1t lilt utloo'* prodliiiMI pottnlill Ill' tappiJit 1 e~~rrucly 1111uaed (an<l unlcltoW!I) 

_,_ a ... 11-- MIJ tlllployed 'OIIIIIooat slldl 4e0Ciopttte111, 10 lllel tile tlevlll0pmet11 requires tilt 

slllflllll of NIOU,_ t'lolll Olllllt MCIOIS 10 fll'l•tmtll ill ANW1l, tllero wiU IIIII be a fttt tCIOIICmlc &1111 Ctom 

lilt I~ ~ of IAaM --tl- 1118 MIIOII"I tlldow!Mal of prodiiCUYt NIOIItces will bvt 

lllcniMd. To 1M- 111111 1111N II._ .... IIIII .. ~of 1M-tequlnd to <I<MIOp ANWR, 

WIN will be lllnher aaflll t'loa alldl devefOptUIII. 

2 
104 

[n tdditlon~ there are JC"Vtral ctber indirect etrccu ot $UCh de¥tlopme:nt. Incre.ased 4omestic oil tupphes re.:!\.:..c 

U.S. impon f"'!Uiremenu, IIIllS lca<lllll 10 !ower world oil priCll:l. Lower r-ura prica U.crusc the o-cr•U 

productr.lry of the economy and reduce tile outllow or capital to oil eapontna c:ountrta. ne development of 

ANW'R. is .. ,!mated to raiK U.S. ONl' by more tban 50.4 bllllOa dollaR (19118 S) by 111e yar 2005. Dcm•<lc 

prtce Ievell are e~tlmated 10 be O.l'lft !ower by the yur 20U) u a ra\111 of ANWR ~lopmcnt. At Ia peak. 

l.hc development of ANWR would ratH U.S. employment by 735 tho~AUnd pcnon.s. 

The principal economic Impacts of ANWR ~lopment tstimatcd In the WEFA rcpon are ••mmari~ In Table 

I. 

Teblc I 

Major U.S. MaaoeconomiC Elfecu of AHWR O..Wl0pme111 

Mld<ll& Price, Hltll Retool,.. C... 

199S 

Oross National l'rodiiCt (billions I& S) 

(dilrcrence from but c:aH) 4.7 

Prlca 

('If. chance In ON!' Dcllator from bale case) 0.0 

Emptoymenl'(tllovnll<ls ot penot!S) S6 

By Sector: Manufacture 21 

Min ina I 

Trl4e 11 

SeMen 6 

Con<tructiOII 15 

FIRE 1 

Industrial Production 

('lit chance from bale -> 0.1 

iy Sector: Minlnc 0.3 

Manul'lcturlftt 0.1 

V&hl<l of ANWR Ill • ......,... ... ., ~ Cocts 

2000 2005 2010 

36.1 50.4 22.4 

0.0 -0.1 .Q.J 

·UO 73$ 372 

90 128 45 

50 a. 122 225 " 7& 

64 l4S 90 

67 13S 107 

14 19 1 

0.1 0.8 0.2 

u s.a l.9 

o.s o.s 0.1 

Ia addflloa to llle 4lrect ~ .,... ot ANW'R, ....,_. deKiftild ....,.., IM .,.1111011 o( domcstk: 

on supply also redUCM 111e praspec!M a:-1 ot uy poMall81 dllnpdoll .. la-IIOMI oil supplfa. Ia order 

10 - liNt sJplnca- ol IIIia dfecl, ..ell of IM aiiOool - - Wried 10 iMiwle tM OC:Ctln&nCI or I 

ll)'polllctkal ..,.porary diiNpdos •• -"! olls•ppllM. In .0 - 3 ~ ot hnlu O•lf C111de svpply is 

1011 tor I period or 4 IIIODIIII, 1lqlaalaJ ID tM tlo•nll 'IIW1• ol 2001. 

l 
105 

1.1 1hc lllel41e pr!.:oo cue, w!lbou1 AHWR. Ill• .a'4C'I of a~ea 1 41anapdora would k 10 raiN l/.5. prlc.ea ~Y o.~ 

Ill tit }'lllat 2002. tedudaJ U.S. ONP ~ •earl)' M llllliOD. 1- ~llatt {0.$~). II • loU ot M0 lholl'-'lld j~. 

Wbll ~ dl\'t!opllllllt, llle prla~ illc:rMiot at~le 10 lilt 4fmlpt!oo. 111'111\HIId lly ~ auc!l_ 11 1011. !A ~ 

ll&b - c:ue. Similarly, ANWR 1'111 .. llle 1011t Ill ONP ~~r . ...,~ 1at1t Ia tile b.l&ll NOIIIIll - Fila,, 

ANWl\ red- ta• jeb lou 1t1rtb1111llle 10 l1ldi I clanlpclofl lly a aila. II 17~ Ia lilt . ., .. ...011":" cUt. 

Eft'cc ot ANWR ~ otl·a- na S.ppl) Dlanlpclofl 

MIHII PriC8 CU. 

(dUfmiiCI be- undistopl'lll IIICI 411npMd -

Ill llle yeu of dllrllpclofl) 

OIOU l'ltllollll P!Odv« (lllllloe& of 1- S) 

Plica (~ clllllp) 

laploylnftt (tboll'-'nda of pmoes) 

4 
United States 

... "Me. , ...... , .. fl 

ISO~IIall:l 

S... C)'M')'C. PJ\ 1'1004 

12151667~ 

TEU::X 8)1609 

F)\1( IllS! 667-7011 

>Iori~ 

I·IOO·l22·V.EFJ\Itll21 US ,,~)'117 Pil!'l'ltyiV,. 

r.aoo-«Y. l'l '6 c.-.-u ..,_ 

25 ~0" M.a "*' 41t1 FI&Ot 

llutlottgton. MA 0180) 

16>111 211-SSOJ F)\1( 16111 2; 1·4C't 

un•.cs Kl"fCCIm 

"""" Ud. ecuty Gilt 

23~-·~·-Sitftl 

10nC10n SWIW OHW. UIC , ••• ,, 7JO.I171 

?ELO: •r6tJS 

FM 144·11 730-1400 

Belgium 

-AI_...._ LA. 

llvrHle at- • 6 

1140 IIVS14'fl lltf9U" llNIZ4N.~ 

IEU::X ll~•\ 

')\1(111·21 ~ill-10 

Cllnada 

..... A~IM. 

777 Sly su ..... 5uolll' .JJ»> 

PO loa I4J T-'!0. Onc.lorio ~MSOlc.l 

(4161 599-5700 FNI. 141., S'l't·SI97 

106 

Chfc9J 

20l NOM l..IS.alle' Slrftl 

Sutle ISSO 

ChoUIJIO. ll60601 

IJ 121236-4747 

F/1:1{ ili212J6..S4.10 

I.OtNiflltl 

6031 W. Cen!ul)' ll-..cl 

Some- 710 

LlK Mglllfl. CA '10045 l21l167().7J9) 

F)\1( 121ll 670-4509 

'*tvtYOfll 

Wllt•if'1910"1~ 

Stllh FICIQt 

New YOI •. NY 10017 

11111 S'l't.(l)'ll 

f)\lljllli .. Ml 

West Germany 

.... " Clllllltt IIM"""9 4 7 

[).6QCO Frl"*lull "'" - I. ~a..,_,. 

····~ 11-81-91 T£1.£1( 414572 

F)\1( 14tofotl 72.(18-00 

,,..nee 

Will'"'- LA. 25. IVC' dt fen~ ...... 

""'"' 75001. Ft.rrnc• tU·r41 ~J-1910 

'~!LEX 6502011\lMAPAIII FAIC llJ•I41 SOJ-7672 

*' ....... _ lSl S..Crfll"tn(o S!rlll!'! 

Suee 600 San frii'ICoiCO. CA 94111 

f41SJ9'l6-6841 

FAII.f41SI 7 .. )071 

~.o.c. 

1110 ve<mon1 ~- N W 

Sur!f 1100 

WISIW>glon. o c 2lDlS 

!lOll 775.()610 FAIC 1102! 8)).367) 

Italy 

Wlf~IS.StL 

MI .... 

'NMont~.l2 

20121 Mil¥> .• ..,. 

ll'l·11 701-007 

FAA fl'l·ll 71kl-2611 

..._ 

111' Alemo 9 OQIWIIomt. ot.J1y 

f)totl M1·75SS FNt: fl .. 61 .. .0365 
-.tJcf: F VENTO ... . ~ .. · ..,_ ....... 

. .... _.... _: :::.:·~ ·\:~ · .:: ~;· · ~;~~~ · 

. :· ..... 

• · ~ , ·' 1 .. $ r 1 .' l t U h ) \) 

.. . '· . ..... '~"" 

107 

ttongrrss of thr United .5tatrs 

tlousr of l~cprummiuu 

tllashington. BQ: 2om-!iot 

ALASKAN On. PRODUCTION ON THE RISENO NEED TO DEVELOP THE ARCTIC REFUGE!! 

April 6, 199S 

Dea.r Collcacue: 

Last week, the SIIIC of Alub's own oil econo111i1U ~lcued a very bullish report on the 

future of oil produclioo oa the Nonb Slope. Without IIIX development of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Rcfup, Maulcbuleal-bue Cambridpl!nerJy Re.an:h Associalel said that Alaska · s 

oil produc:llon decllue could be otrser by production at r~elds now deemed marginal . Alaska 

would be able 10 produce 1110n1 oillal yean from now than it does today, with development of 

existilll fields oa tile Nonh Slope. Punhe""""' Alul<a Feder.al anti State native lands have vast 

st"*hes of ueu dill Uti eliaible o- · for oil. Diligence and 

oveniahe of thole ueu open to <k :der. .--

lroaically, tM IIIIIOIIncement of the favorable oil forecasc coincided with an 

~by Alulla Govemor Toay K-1ea dill he plana 10 spend S6SO,OOO on a renewed 

pusiiiO pi fedlrallppCOVII for oil explonlioa aad ~ ill the A.aic: National Wildlife 

Rcfup. 

By MY otJjecdw IIIDdanl, Alub, widl no liMe iAcome IU and with an annual dividend 

check of aeally SIClOO for every IDIIl aad w-. is ill pretty JOOd shape economically 

tompued 10 111011 ocMr ..... ne ........ alrady .-ived over $40' billion in oil royalt ~s 

over the laa tw.-y ,_,., aad IICCOidiq 10 tbia new oil foreast, is likely to receive many 

billioaa IIIOftl. This lllllull foNCUl CUll serious doubt oa tMJioom and doom argument about 

declilliDI produclioo ud die impaldiD11Miuupecy of Alub unless the Arctic National Wildlife 

Rcfup is gpcllld 10 oil ud pa "developaleal. 

'111eColllall'lllll afdlaAialc NllioMl ~ ltel\ap beloap to each of us as citizens 

of the Uaad 5-. 'l"beN wW - be IIIOdllr P*- lilra 1M An:tic Rcfup in our national 

laada. Ills .......... If dlwelaped, Is .,.. f'alwlr. OpciiDIIaic f- pn=dict that if oil is 

di---s widlia till Aaalc NllioMl Wildllfll Ana, lUCia dilcovery and development would 

prvvide ._a 200 clay U.S. c pioa of oil. T'wo-t.Ddred days for the nation"s oil 

appllile, IIIII .,.._ ._uc:tl&6- dllpail ... aad modify ... IIIII caribou calvin1srounds, tho: 

'-of 160,000 ptiiQIIIial caribou henl- for- Nanb AIMrlcla Scnapti. Our. priiiiDI ~ ud - IDdulrial CXIIIIpla. c:...ar CCHiilt. 

~ •diiS..'a GWII oil« 1 -••i, till.- ad!lr p'IK.10 drill for oil on the 

Nocd! S1ap1. 811 ..... ., adllr Aaalc NllioMl WlldiHe ....... Piela support, HR 1000, 

10 sn-w dill .,_ • ~ Neidler ~ _. Alulla Is riel! -lh to lose this 

.,..:ioua ~or poor_,.. eo_. eo. 

'' f . ' 

s~~~ 

v.-, 

,,..~ .. -.... 
108 

(Cambridge Energy Research Associates. ·~c 

Ollrle& Sc;uanl 

lO UnMisi!Y Rol4 

Cambriclte- ~02118 

1tlephcne: (61114~6 

....., 6714001 CEIA UW 

~; (61 T) 4cn.Q411 

Ann-Louise Hittle 

Oiteetcr. World Oil 

May 2$,1995 

~!he Bru.ce Ven:o 

2304 a.t.ybum HOB 

WashinJton. DC 20!115 

Dar R..prws.nwive Ver11o: 

1 Am rupondinc to yo111 "Deet Colleap~ !Iller of Apri16, 1995 cmllled iUasklUI Oil 

P~ Oil 'l'lwltU.-No Nled To DlwflDp 1'1l.t An:fk Rl/!ftll~! We Wl$11 to <:311 yoar 

att.ead011 to !be fiCt that the III!UAr appun to be bue6 oa NpCXU that colllpklaly lllilllllle uacl 

mbilatpnc !be aaalylil .. pn8lll1ld to 1111 AJuk& a.~ IIIII; specific:ally, tbo 

CODCIIIIion. Oar repart illiCit MINltilll~ 011 lilt flllure of North Slope oil prodl.ll:tioa. Incfced, 

we a a 1111tp decline in tbl cxbU111 fiDids. 

M the IUdloa of dllc IDI1ysll. Clm'b!:idF Eaeqy R--=tl AssoQales (CERA) is vety 

conc:emiCI thallbl report's COIIIeiUJ aot bt misiiMIS"IIIId or missl:alad. We wtnt to ba !111,.. to 

eonny 10 you 1M CD~~Clulioa of OW' repcrt IIIIi why·it is c variance wirlllhe viewt 

lllislakeftly auribll!ed in yoar laal:r. 

You $WCXl dlc "Alalia's oil pmductlon decline could be omet Witbout any development of 

the Arctic National Wtldlife Refqe by prodllcli01111 flllida 11.0w ~ maflinal'' 31\d. that 

•AJulca -w be lbW to produce 11101'11 oil !lift yeas from.now dum it does today, with the 

dev•lopment of exilti.Da fioldl oa lbl Ncl'lb Slopo". '1'bb view I• wt0111b ~tod to us. We GUU1C11: be the -of .cb a vtaw. ~ b 110 buill iD oar 11:pon for 1:he stale!Dint in 

yoarletW. 

The only way IIW Allsk&ll production ten ylllll'l from 1lOW can retum to eumnt levels of 

capacity il tJxoaP m. dovci)pmlat clan exisliaa fields t111t pnsem~y do IIIX have • o..el.oplllllllt PJ'OII'IIIllal. in lddil:lon. tluou&h n diaco'tay of oew fields. The limine and 

cOqlttiQa gf aay aew fielda is lllll:el.'laiD. Aay - procliiCSion wuald 011ly take place it 

..... proJec:u Qll OXIIplllla tcoDOil'lially wim Oilier potliblo invel1lllalll outSide of A.Wb. 

Tile devliopmenr of exildJIC fields a'-, willlollt aay - dbcoVIIrill, would result io 

oYeal1l c:ap.IIC'ity cl U21!1illl01l bamtls daily (mbd) wtdch ill .:zso,OOO bani dally J>.k>w 

cummt c:apec:ity of 1.67 mbcl. 
109 

Perhaps a source of confusion in your letter is me assumptioa that CERA h.as foreta.st Nonb 

Slope oil pmd.UJ:tioro. That is incom:ct. Our report ptovid• a foncut of Noob Slope liquid 

(include$ crude, condensate. 1111d NOLa) pr<1t!uctive Cll.fl"lly. The distinction is critical to 

lntatpreting the forecast cut\'e$ that were included in the tcpOft. 

Productive capacil}'. as used in our report. tepteSCnU our estimates of the combined 

maximum volum11 of hydrocllf'oon liquids that ,'Oilld {nut will or would) be produced. over 

time, from: 

1) all CUI'mltly producios fields, pl11s 

2) discoVCRid fields under di::YtiO()meoc:. plus 

3) d~overa:l and deliaealld ftelds which are Clll'rently UlliiCOllarnil; to develop,lllus 

4) fields which Nwll net yet, hut '""Jib• di.lccver~<l in thttfllltln. 

It shaul4 t:. obvious th.at me r1t1t lWO ~awaon.a ha.,.. a ralatively hip <~epee or 

pNdicfabilil}' compand 10 me latter lWO. 

The Hkclihood ot actual productiolt levels matchin; for=a.n levels over any exrended period 

is dependellt on many faculn. These include oil or ps priee, deveiopmtne (etpital), 

operatin& Uld tt:IJ\CpOC1llti costs ud other factoa. includinJ mervotr perform&llCC ud 

mechanical and loading pfOblems-all or which may dcput significaatly from predlcttld 

lc~. Thus. even for prOduction forewa, analyStS aenmllY describe lbtir pmdictions in 

=a. of dw Jl(obllbUil}' of their a=alty ~as fom:uL For discoYeftld fields that 

ll&ve aever been pmduced. ami pamculatly for w~~ ~,Illy fon-R of 

pl'fJtluaicft 'MlUid be meaninlleU. That is wily we speak in 111m11 of prcductive capacity for 

tbese car.pa of fields. 

The concept of 'productive capacity' depends upon alllllllber of IIW)'tic uswnptions. It 

assumes dW a cenain number of fields of a given si:re will ba diu:o'llel'ltd oa antstilllaled 

sc:bedule. that thelt produc:tioa profiles Will reflect pre-develOPIDIIII: predictions, that eltistina 

fields will bo pi'04uced coneurreody u forecast. 1114 that Ill cfiiii:OVellld l>ut Cllmmliy 

WIIICOnOIIIio fields will bo brou~ illlo ptod1ICtioa at deaipllllld tima, eild will thereafter 

pcoducc • ro-ast. Jl IJlJ of those evc~~ts occumd. the mult would be the fom:as1 

prodw:nv. ctll/O(ity. 

Pteue obsme 1be IUildiiS dift'mnct batwwn your ..,_..,ll:llllmlnt$ about North Slope 

producticn and our IIWysis. Our report's forecast of capacity &om PNdhoe Bay field and 

bum adler ft.W. eumady proclueilla « aaci«~Opmnt oa the Nonh Slope co!Miales 

very c:loMly with lho f~ of qthen. inclw!inalhe s .. ot A1ub. We pn:ditt that 

Prudhoe ky'a pn)ducdon will dec:lille by 1l percent bet- 1990 and 2005-!rom a rate of 

approximately !.4lmbclto a me of 393,000 buftls daily. 

In Iiiii same p:rioCt. we forec:ast total production from 11U odltr c:um~~~tly producing fields, u 

well• hvm lboM ticlda o:u.m:IU!y Wider development, to have dec:llMd by 31 pen:ent from & '*' ot 484.000 b4 ro a nra ot' 319.000 barrels daily after a mid·1990s pelk of .59.5,000 beL 

P« !be )'Ill' 2010. we forecast 1111 combined pmdllcdot1 llln!llll to !lave declined by 79 

pen:eor tram ita.mpoljUJtover2.0 millioo bmels per day io1988 to431,000 bel.. 

2 
110 

The 'IIICognitian in ou.r r:epon of the many discovered, but undeveloped oil and au rasuvcs. 

u well u die potallial n1o"'"1 y~ 10 be c!UcoYeft!d on tbe Noltb Slope, ill also coui.Jtent 

with previous foriiCIIItS of U.ll&ll. Tht Cli*iqr .,.. f~ other th&ll tlw of C\IIJ'O.IItly 

pnxlucins fielcb and lhote under deYelopmenr. ccmsiJa primarily of lhe SlltDII (!&Ids which 

smu officw$ identified in Coqn:aionll bArinp on North Slope oil potenlillllt!O 

development ~ld duri.ng 1~ sum.rncr ~ 1987. 

CEllA is &II inclepeodeAt orpnizalon piOYiclins objKtive malysis 111d resellt\:h :and we do 

noc lllb policy ~~~~on this ar otb« i.aaa We hope you f\nd ltlia ltld« u.eful and 

helpful in clarltytnr tile rKOrd so as ncx to llllibllle views to us that an: at variance wilh our 

· actU4l metrcll. AM we funher h.ope that you WIB ftDd the oppommlly to COt'ft:l:t tbe record 

OD this tmal!r. 

~A-~ ~Louitc Hildo 

Directcr, World Oil 
111 

(Cambridge Energy Research Associates .. ~ 

OlrleiSqo.oar. 

tau~~~ A 

~,;-;m~~!lt ._: 4f!COOS altA \JW 

"""' (Al" 10~11 

Allll•lolllle HUtle 

Director, lllor14 Oil 

~l.S. 1995 

~pn=sentativt Bna Vcr.to 

2304 blbum HOI WOdll~ 0C %05 :S 

DW'~VIIIIIr.. 

r llll~tiJOIIdill to xour ''Oat Collqp" ktllr ot Afril6. 1995 eallded Akzr.t.M Oil 

'f'I'OIIw:tltlll O.TIIf IJM-N• NuM To rn• za.r Ate* lttiflilll w. willa tocaU ,_. tllellliOa 10 tiM I'ICt ._1M.....,....,. to be 1IIIIICI Oll111(1011S IIIII -plaeoly ~ aad 

... ..,. • ...,. .. ,...... ... A!Mb.S.~-apecifialt,,lhe 

(QIIClufoL OllrftiPIItiSIIOI "'luuJbh"CIII .. f'llrln of N'Oitii.Sioftoil p&Qeltclio11. Indeed, ,. .. alllllp 4oc:lialla dlllllisclna e.w.. 

~ 

As the &lldlcx1 of"*....,.... Cambriotel BIIIIU -....cit Auociatq (CEl/.) is very lblr lilt .,_.$CIOIIKINJIIOibtiU~ ot miUWtcl. We 11.'1111. to be 1111te 10 

t:oa'ttl)l. ,eulho CODillulioo "'-~ ...... ,it It Ill v.n- wid! 11M vitW. 

mi$11kealy llll'i1Uled Ill JCUI'Iac:· 

Yc.a stale4 *t -AtasWs oil pn:lduelloacf«incauld bt om.t •itli<M llnY fk•elop!'lllllt ot 

1M Atccic Nalioul WiJd1lle ltlup lu ~ u fleldt- deeniiiCI·~~~~r~iaal" llld that 

"Aia&b W\IIUid bollllle .. .._ .. ..._,.,. .. _-il ... IOCI&y, wit- :he 

dayt~opam. of ulsdla fkldl oa die Nonh Slofll".'this vi.tw it WIOIIIIY llriN&c<lto""" 

w, c::IIIIIGilw 11M,... or_. a .... 111e1e 111 no'*" ia-~ t«dM llllaMIIt u. ,_, .... tbo OCII7-. !IIUAiaKa ~ * ,.a~Sfmll- CCII n&ulft lllt<!wftlltlevels of 

~ ia lillfoullllllt ~or allailllq fields 1llll ...-"do 1101 have a *~pre.-md. ill ldcldoa. ..... IM~ot-fWclt.. 'Thetimmalll'ld .... ,, .... ,.,.., -i'W41 illllieertaia. Au -~ ..... OIIIJ- piKe if . .._,......_...,...--uc.lb wida.,DOUibla~OIIISideot Alasb. 

....... cotCJCilllll ndllla6oM. ,_ •r MW..,...... -w tetull ill 

-a ~ of lA lllllolllle!.llb dilly (!IIW)wllicll il250.000llln'el dilly IH'-

-~oti.MIIIW. 
112 

l'etllaps a $0W"Ce Of COIII'.!S\0!1 In your lttter is Ule ass\tmptlon tl'lat Cfl,ft.4. h.u fontcast Sortb 

Slope oil :mldut:fiQn. That Is inc:omct Our rt~on provides • fo...:ut of Nortll Sl"i"' li'i"i4 

(IncludeS cruel•, coadeNaat, a~CJ :'fOU) pf'<Kiwt·rJ•• rapaciry. Th~ di)<i.act"'" •• critiou .. 

lnllcrprelift! the foncu1 :llr'·n dl3t .... ,. included in the I'C~. 

Producu-.e capacity. u used in ru;r ~pon. R.P~•c"'" out "tln-:.a&u of the .:omb~~ed 

MUrmum volume ofllydtOc.u\Jon liquid' !h&t <"•Ill (not .. m,. WO<Jld) •• pro.Juced, """' 

tlme. t10rn: 

1) IN! cummtly p«<cc~Kinl tltldf, plus 

2) dlseovered fteldl vncl« development. plu, 

3) dlseovertiUIICI <lel!lle&te~ fields wbicll are cummlr unc<:onomic co develop, plu, 

4) tltllls IO'hidl /VJw lti'JI )'It ht rtrol7 k dtlrovcnd 111 dlt: forurc. 

It SIIO\Ild 0. ~ :."' 11\e lint !Yt"O CMCpt!U b&\11. ll A!141i~l)' hi5h dcfi'C" of 

pte4klatllllty _,..t4 :o 111e laaer t10o. 

ne IUI:tlll\oocl of ICIIIal ~"" lelftl$ 1111cbiq forccut le,..b - &nJ' e!IWided period 

Is oepell44tll -·-7 llf:ICitS.·'tllotM IIICIQ oil or.., price, dcvolopJ>ent (•lflca.l}. 

op81'11de&alld VII'ISponaMe ~ and Oilier I'Ktors. inehllha ~ pcrl'Oftllaoc:t and 

m&CIIIIIIallll41oec11DJ proDIC!M--411 l:t whlcllll'rily dil:pul lipaifiUiftly f.om Jlft'liclcd 

ltv-a. Tllul, .,. .. tor ,..odUcUCift rocecasu, WIY'Q ~ ~ dloir procllct!ofts ill 

Items-of 1M polllllllily or 11111r ICt'IIIUr OCCIUriaC as!~Mcua:. Por~d &.lr.ll. U.tt 

...,. ......., -. ~ IIIII f11*11!11ty ftlr "'UUdd~IICt' ftlltb. 1117 I\INc.Nlof 

,ottuctUNI WCilld be -lltaltn· Tal& Is •IIY ""spat In wnu ol~li" ,_,..d'Y 1bt 

lilac ~lollqOCM of fteldl. . 

Til• CCMICllpt ot ·~ve cap:llf ~ .spon a IIWIIbn ot II'III,U.O lmllllpli.,...lt 

anumes lllll a catlin IIII1Dbcr of 11114$ ot l 1lvt11tlzD wOI be ~ ot1 a• ... :m.&I.C1l 

SCIIIGUie, lllllllllt jii'OCU:UOG pcUUct will ttllca ,....._.,_ pl'IIOic"'-. lbM uitlb>J 

ftelidS Will lie~ COIIICIIIftlllly l.ll\lRCIII. 1114 U all diKO--' bvi.CiliWfltly 

QMCQIIIOIIIIc n.Jcb Will M 1llollp III!C pi'OIIIXIIoa u duipaSiclllnla. aDd will chered'tct 

produCo .. r-...11' 1111 of Illite ll\leiiiJ ~UiftCI, 11M-- woal4 l:llt 11M ro- P~'tzt*l11· 

Plealt~ III•Utllkfnldllllrnllc•bt ......... yoar lltwr'l ~ aa-tNortlt Slope 

proclllcfloll M4 CNriNiyllt. CUtn,-t's n.c.r 1:11 ~ l'.lonl Pn.~ Bl)' field lll'd 

I'NIII OU. ftlldlcwnaly J'l'OifUCill otllldef~oa dill~ Slope~, 

wry c10111y Willi 111e l'olerats ~:t 0111er1. illciiMllq me,_ or Alllb.. we (nOte~ • 

f'nldtlee ...., •• prodUCI.ioa will dlc&lll llf 73 pctee11C '*-I ,-,c) IR lOOS-II'om Q r.ttll or 

~Y JA3 mW to a l'llll ol 393.000 bamlsdiUy. 

Ia ""'-- paMot,- fonlcllll-.t jll'Odlolctlon froiii.U ..... ~ p:~ fiol.t. .... 

wtU u ha11ae ftlllda Cllll'llli1Y 111111tr diMioplllcll'l, 10 lla'N dtl:llllcd by :u pct~t !tora" 

r111; of414.000bd 10 a :a onlf,OOOIMIItliNy aftllfa ...... l'"-pc• of 595,000 w. flor die ,... 2010, ... fonCalt 1M COIIIIIiMd podllr:doa $UWIIIO b&M dcctUwllo)' 'It 

,..... lan iG!IiP of jaU ocl.O llillolllllnlll Dill' diJ lli1Ht~a 431.000 bot 
113 

TM hi:OI•itiaca ia ow~ otla& -y else~ but ~lo,..t oil U\4 pa ru•"·••· • Mil .. rile pec&allal ;, __ ,.10" clllco--" 011 clle N .... Slo,.. ;. lhO COII!IWit 

w\111 pRYiout ~ el .. - "tile~-,.....,.... ocMr 1111111 thl& oF o-tly piOd\Kiftl ftclclllllld dal Uldii'-..!Dpaiat. _.. .. ,.UU..l7 of tiM - fttld1 lllb!ell 

llala olncilllliOelldfteG Ill CDDIJWIICIUlllcl&iqll oa Nootll Slo,. oil polllldal ud 

CU\"tiO(IIIIIIIlllll4 dudlllllc IUIUia oiiM'f. 

CPA illlllcldtpilldciU OlpnlllllOI ,......w;oa ~wlllll7tl' ..-4 ....-!~ ....S w« do 

110( CUe polley pollli- a.lllb « otber ......... ..,. 7001 fllld lhil ** llld\<lllld 

llc~llll etartfYilll die reconlso u IIOliO _..,_'~lew~ 10 DIIIIM.,. at~ ...;th our ICIIIal ~-AM Wll'ln!IA. lblt ,w wt!IH IN .,.._ity to ._!be reecrd. 

on Ill'- ruaw. 
114 

ANWRUPDATE ANWR 

Economics and National Energy Security 

Domestic oil production in the U.S. is decreasing rapid!v and will continue to decline bv mtl!ion or barrel< 

per day over thoe next few years. At the same time. nattonai demand for otl has steadily Inc.:eased to the highest 

levels since the 1970's. Foretgn oil imports create a dependence on potentially unstable sources and put I he 

LS. in a state oi import vulnerability. Our national security and economic stability depend on sufficient a\ail· 

ability of domestic oil suppHes. DeveJopment of oit and gas reserves in the l002 Area is cnti<:al to a stead\ 

supply of domestic crude oil. · 

Domestic production in the U.S. is declining rapidly. 

• Domestic oH production is down to 6.6 million barrels a day in \994- the lowest annual level .;in~;ee I '15..1. 

• Domesti~,; crude output fell l.S million barrel$ per day in \994 compared with 1980 levels: dunng the -;arne 

time. domestic consumplion increased by 3."%. 

• The number of production rigs in the U.S. fell from -'.409 in 1983 Lo 2.320 tn 1990. a drop of 47% 

• The number ofrouuy rigs in the U.S. fell from 1.969 in 1983 to 7t9 in 1992, 

• Decline cannot be offset solely by increased conservation and alternate energy sources. 

• North Slope production <2.5% of U.S. total) is e,;pected to decline annually at a rate of 10%, from an 

average of 1.8 miUiol'l barreb per day in 1991, 

• Of the original 12 btllion bam:ls of recoverable od at Prudhoe Bay. only ·t!S biUion remain today, 

U.S. demand for oil is continuing to increase rapidly. 

• National demand for oiJ has steadily increased lO mon: than 17.7 million barrels per day. the highest level 

since the mid~ 1910's, 

• Even with increased conservation. U.S. energy demand could increase 19% in the next 10 years. 

• Oil and gas account for6S% of U.S. energy use. 

• Oil will still provide 38' of U.S. energy demand by the year 2030. 

• The transportation sector of rbe U.S. economy uses 63% of the petroleum and is 98% dependent on oil 

• National security and economic stability depend on sufficient availability of domes1ic oil supplies. 

Dependence on foreign imports is increasing rapidly. 

• During 1973 A~b oil embargo, the U.S. imported 33% of its oil. 

• By 1994. theU.S.tmponedS0.4\Iiofi!Soil. • In l990, imports. c:osc lhe nation $64.6 butloo and .-;:counted for~ o£ the U.S. trade deficit. creating 

dangerous dependence on poccntiaUy unstlble soun:es. 

• Energy impons increased by more than SIO miltion between 1989 and t990 and are continuing to rise 

• U.S. Department of EnetaY has stated char by rhe 2000. the U.S. could be impontna close to 70% or its oil. 

• Unless od prices increase appneiably. U.S. e~ploration wiU remain stagnant. foreign imports will conlinue 

m rise. and U.S. vulnerability tO oil price shocks and possible shortages or stoppages could have large 

economic impacts. 

Tbere is no conflict between lltUng the Alaska North Slope export ban and 

development of the 1002 Area. 

• The 22-year-o!d bu is the only law today rh.ar requires that a raourcc be sold only in the other 49 stares. 

• Allowing the -expon of North Slope crude will decrease uansponarioft costs (Gulf Coast vs. West Coaso. 

• By the time ANWR is developod, Prudhoe Bay production will he at 400,000 bamols per day. • Even if oil dtillina: in ANWR brinjS TAPS back to up capacily of 2.1 million barrels per day, by the lime 

lhe tleld is developed (200$), the 1rowth on the West Coast will justify development. 

• LiftinB the ban now wlll reduce the cosr of imponins oll (more !han~ of U.S. trade defteiO. 

• Allowina ANWR development co be'in will reduce the CO$l ot' imported oll in the MlU 10 yem. Even if all 

the otl isn't needed :u chmtlme. the sutpiU$ could be sold to foreian matbu to further reduce !he balance~ 

Qf-trade deticit. 
115 

ANWRUPDATE \ptil IIJQ5' 

ANWR 

Economic Benefits from ANWR Development 

Development of oil and gas reserves in the 100" Area would provide countless economic 

benefits- including jobs- across the l"nited States. Increased energy efficiencv. on the contrarv. would 

not create jobs. The Department of Interior estimates a l·in-2 chance of finding 9~2 billion barrels. o( od 10 

the 1002 Area. Development is a sound investment in America's economic fur~re. 

Current North Slope production shows benefits of developing arctic oil reserves. 

• Since 1979. :"lonh Slope production (over 8 billion barrelsJ has saved the L'.S . .:approx.imately S 19~ billion 

in oil import costs alone. 

• Every state has ex.perienced economic benet1ts of oil production from Alaska's North Slope (see map1 

• Development of North Slope oil tields has contributed more than SJOO billion to the L'.S. econom~ 

With continued investment, Alaska can still supply 25% of U.S. domestic oil. 

• Owners will spendS I. t billion this year to increase production from existing wells at Prudhoe Bay. 

• SIS billion could be spent on North Slope development projects on existing leases in the next 10 years. 

Oil imports reached 8.9 million barrels per day in 1994, accounting for the first time for 

more than half of U.S. petroleum use. 

• Imports reached 50.4%, climbing 3.5% from 1993 to 1994. 

• U.S. production continued its decline- fell to a 40-year low in 1994. 

• Overall U.S. crude oil production fell to 6.6 million barrels per day,lowest since 1954. 

• Previous record for impon was 109,000 barrels/day, set in 1977. 

ANWR holds the greatest potential economic and energy security benefits in the U.S 

• Oil not produced in ANWR will be imported from other sources. 

• Government estimates show that at least 250,000 jobs would be created as a result of I 002 Area development. Private sector studies place the total at 735.000 jobs. 

• The United States has no other comparable options for domestic production. 

• U.S. GNP would increase by S$0.4 billion. 

• U.S. could save $14 billion per year in imports wilh ANWR's predicted one million barrels a day. 

• Production could reach nearly 2 million bbVday by 2015. nearly one-lhird of domestic production then. 

• ANWR itself would be among the top 8 oil production nations in the world. 

• The U.S. deficit would be reduced wilh oil lease bonuses. rentals. royalties. and excise/income taxes. 

The U.S. Department or Interior, using the best available geologic data, is very 

optimistic about production from the 1002 Area. 

• There is a 1-in-2 chance (464JJ) that the 1002 Area of ANWR holds 9.2 billion banels of oil, according 10 

!he Depatunentoflnlericw(Aprill993). 

• The 1002 Area could produce one million barrels ofoiVday for at leasl 25 years- equivalent to 12% of the 

cunent daily U.S. production. and enouch to provide allaasoline used by 14~ of Americans' automobiles. 

• ANWR may hokl u much u 12 billion barrels of recoverable oil. 

• U.S. Depanmenc of the Interior hu swed that net national economic benefits from ANWR development 

could.IUCb 5325 billion. 

Allowina exploration to begin now In ANWR is c:ritical economically. 

• Production of ANWR oil would ensure efficient use of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline and North Slope facilities. 

• U.S. Department of Interior estima&eS dw TAPS will be considered uneconomical by the year 201.5. and the 

law states that it will be removed. 

• Without ANWR. I billion ban'els of oil will be lefl. in Prudhoe Bay and in mqinal and offshore fields. 

• Future jobs are dependent on new diKOveries in developed areas where facilities are in place. 
116 

ANWRUPDATE 

Caribou Populations and Calving Areas 

Over two decades of development on the Sonh Slope have shown that caribou can co-e"st 

»ith de,·eJopment. The Central Arctic Herd. which calves tn the Prudhoe Bay and Kuparuk o:i 

tields. has increased from 3.000 animals to more than :!3.500 animals. Facilities m the IOOZ 

Area would be designed to protect this important species. 

Caribou populations in Alaska and throughout ;-.;orth America are flourishing. 

• More than 3.5 million o::ari~u are found in North Ameri'" in 130 herds. as comp.lrt:d to 1. t million .::arit-ou 

found in herds 10 lcehtnd, Greenland. Sr:attd3navia and Ruuia. 

• CMiOOu popul;u:ons are generally increasin( across ~orth Amer:ic;~. 

• 900.000 caribou io 33 herds. are found in Alask;;a. 

• Four herds art found on Alaska's North Slope~ Porcupme Caribou Herd fPCHJ. Central Arcuc: Herd 

iCAH/. Western Ar<:llc Herd (WAHl and Teshekpuk Herd . 

• Porcupine Caribou Herd decreased 10 160.000 after an peak in 1989 of 180.000 (A1"\VR/Canad<u . 

• Contra! An:tic Herd increased from 3.000 to 13.SOO (Pn!dhoe/Kuparuk). 

- We,tem Ar<:ti<: Herd inetUSinJ. now total• 416.000 (NPRAJ, 

· Teshekpuk ben! increasinJ. now totals 16.700 fNPRAi. 

• Considerable miltinJ occurs amona herds, 

Oil development has not adversely affected caribou. 

• Oil field activities have nOt ad"ftSCtly impacted the population si:e of any fish or wHdUfe species using the 

North Slope. includinJ c:aribou. 

• !'o discernible effect on rqional distribution. miption paucrns. calvinl succeu. herd s.ize. productiv,ty. 

or other bioiO(i<ally impunaot -soics of <>ribou has boon esuob!isbed, 

• Oil field layovt and stNCtUres on the North Slope are desi,.O tO f.ciUtate wUdJife movements such ::t.s 

c;-aribou mirration 

• Oil field tU'\lCI~res have not caused larF scale blocka,e of eatibou movemenL regional d.isplactment of 

major c3ribou activities, or a sirnific:ant reduction in auilable habitat. 

AIIWR 

Central Arctic Herd caribou are healthy and increasing in the Prudhoe Ba~· region. 

• Pregn~nt ~ow5 and cow/cal( pairs MO\'C into area in early June. 

• Bolh ,.,., use the coastal relfions for relief front boot and mosquilotl. 

• Caribou spend most of che nine~month winter near the Brooks RanJe. 

• Herd .si;ee has increased from 3.000 at~imals in enrly 1970's 10 an -estimated !3,500 :tnimals during 11.1.-o 

dec~s or dtvelopment. 

Importance of tradltlollal calving areas has been exaaerated. 

• L..irge numbers of cows haVe been in the Jo.so uplands inS of the fast 9 years • .:mel only once did the more" 

<bon ttaJr or-oalvo ill !be ...... 

• CAH caribou continue to use the: lnldllional calving ;uea now within the Kuparuk oil field. showing only 

local ovoidonce or ..Uvo roads aDd podl. 

• Choice of calvina area dopencb on snow melt and early arowtb of fOI"lp plants- and data show consider:1ble 

variation in location from year tO year. 

• In 13 of the last 19 years, less tb:m OM·fifth of the herd has calved in thc''eore" calvinJ area. 

• The majorily of the PCH calved in the .. core" calving: uea only once iA cbe last 19 yeats. 

• 68~ oi the lime:. •m than 25._ of the htrd ~ved in the "core .. area. 

• Tthc m:1jority of the PCH calved in Lhe 1002 Area only twice in 8 ye.ars . 

• so~ of the time. less than 2.5Ci\ of the herd cnh·ed in the 100"2 Afa;. 
117 

ANWRUPDATE AN\'1/R 

Grizzly Bears, Wolves, Muskoxen and Birds 

Wildlife other than caribou - such as bea.cs and wol ves- use the 1002 Area infrequently and would be un · 

at'fec[ed by development. Populations of these animals- and others that live in the Refuge such as muskoxl!n 

- are healthy and increasing despite= three decades of de velopment at Prudhoe Bay. Oil ilnd gas \' !o pm~ m 

in the 1002 Area would be temporary. and the long-tenn ability of the habitat to support wildhfe would not 

be affected. 

Grizzly bears use the North Slope oil fields today. 

• Cooper.Ui'o'e studies with federal and state ageru:ies moni!Of bear sighrings and den !ocauons ro ed ~:.:. the 

likelihood of inleractions ~tw~en humans and be3t'S. 

• The pizzly bear population has incre35ed to about 26 in 1he Prudhoe Bay oil tield. and industr;.· iulkied 

both monitoring and aversion programs by the Alaska Ocpartrhent of fish and Game . 

.. No griuly bears have ever been killed in the Nonh Slope oil fielcb in the course of routine operat•ons. 

• In over 20 ytars of oper~tion. only 13 sriuly bean have been killed along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline 

(compared wuh 25 black. Man in 1he Anchorage area and 65 in the Juneau area during the same rime I. 

Wolves continue to thrive in the Arctic. 

• Wohes were abundant on lhe North Slope in rhe 1940's to 1960's. 

• Historic reductions in the wolr populations have been auributed to government-approved aerial huncins; and. 

a bounty S)'stem specificall)' aimed at reducing wolf numbers- these programs continued inro rhe enrl:o' 

t970"s, 

• According to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, the wolf population is healthy and increasing. 

• Wolves are more abundant in the foochills and mountainous areas of the Brooks Range and least abundanl 

on the coastal plain. 

Muskoxen use the refuge but would be unaffected by development in ANWR. 

• During the last survey in 1989. che~ Wffe 359 musko,;en in ANWR. compared to 476 after cal vin ¥ in 

1985. 

• There are more musko~en outside the rcfup: Of the approximateiy 1,800 muskox.en in Alask~ . 300 to .& 00 

Me on 1he Seward Peninsuia. 200 at Cape Thompson . .SOO on Nunlvak lsland. and 200 on Nelson l:s.lolnd. 

• Hunring is c~fully controlled by permits. In A.NWR. only 5 bull harvests are pmnicted ~ch year. 

Between 1983 and 1986. only 16 animals wert lal<cn. 

Millions of migratory tilrds would still nest and breed without adverse impact. 

• Neuin1 populations of Brant on Howe Eslud have increased. from 33 pairs in 1984 co 100 pairs in 19~6 {0 

over 200 paitl in 1990. 

• Nacin& populations of Snow Oceseon Howe bland ittC'lQSeld Crom j() nests in t980 ro4j5 ne$l5 in 1993. 

• Species diversiry and: numbets of birds are the same in developed areas and tn similar. undisturbed otreas ot' 

the coastotl plain. 

• Some birds nest in higher densities alona abandoned peat ro.b than in undis1wbed paru of the oil ticlds. 

• BOlh c:uibou Qnd birds often use abandoned aravel pads n:a.ther than adjacent undiswrbed tundra. 

• Recent surveys holve shown an incrase in the IOC'al populilKm of Spec:tac:led Eiden. 
ll8 

ANWRUPDATE \pril to.Jo.J~ 

ANWR 

Marine Mammals 

C)(:velopment of the 1002 Area of A.~"\\ 's Arctic Coastal Plain will have little or no impact on marine: mammal populations. All marine mammals are protected under the ~arine \-tammal Protection Act of 197:::. v.ht~o:h 

prohibits the unauthorized ''take·· of any marine mammal. ~Iarine mammals are also protected under a \·ariety of local. state. national. and international treaties and agreements. Populations of polar bears. bowht:aJ 

whales. belukha whales. walrus and seals are healthy and increasing. 

Polar bears and their denning habitat are fully protected. 

• There :tee approximacely 5.000 bears in the Bcaufon Sea PQpulation. 

• The population appears stable. despite a sienifiCOlJ11 subsistence take. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servkc has confumed only four polar bear dens in the 1002 Area since 1989. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has teslified thilf. effective methods exist 10 ensure that no significant 

:ld\lerse effects occur on ANWR. wildlife, inc!udinJ polar be3C'S. 

• E\·ery exploration otnd development site is manaaed to minimize the likelihood of human/bear encounters. 

• No polar bears ha\le been killed in the Alaskan Arctic in the coUBC of routine oil field acti\lities. 

• Only one bear has been killed durins exploratory work (in that instance the lethal take was necesslll)' to 

protect human life). 

• Site personnel are trained to deal with human/bear encounter1. 

Bowhead whales and belukha whales would not be impacted by onshore or nearshore 

development of the 1002 Area. 

• The western arctic stock of bowhead whales is estimated at 8,000 animals and increasinJ. 

• Whales typically stay in water depths of more than :Z0-30 meters. 

• Whales in the Alaskan Beaufon Sea :ue migratina: through the region. They summer in the Canadi3n 

Be:1ufon and winter in the Berina Sea. 

• The Bering/Chukchi/Beaufort population of belukha whales is estimated at 2!!i.OOO animals. 

• . .o\n estimated II . .SOO whales mirrate from the BerinJ Scot to the casttm Beaufort Sc:~.. The whales migrate 

throuah the Alaskan Beaufort in AprilJMay and September or Cktober. 

Pacific walrus would be uuatrectecl by development of the 1002 Area. 

• Walrus arc infrequent vlsiton to the Alaskan Beaufon Sea. They only rarely ranae cast of Point Barrow. 

• The "illa,c of Kotktovik Lakes, on avera,c. three waJru.s per year. 

Ringed, bearded and spotted seals would be unaffected by development in ANWR. 

• Seals found in the Alaskan Bcaufon Sea are icc-ilSsociatcd. 

• Popul3tion numbers are estimaud at: 250.000 spotted ~als ; 300.000 bearded seals; and l.!!i million ringed 

seals. 

• These three species~ noc endanpted and would noc be impacted by coastal or nearshore developments. 
119 

ANWRUPDATE .\pril I'JQ~ 

AI>IWR 

Air Quality on the North Slope 

Air quality on Alaska· s >iorth Stope meets or e~ceeds state and federal regulatory requirements. Sarur:t.l e.:!s. 

one of the ..:leanest-burning fuels available. is used in the turbines at oil production and ~l~tricall!eneril{i n 

facilities. ~lajor emissions are nhrogen o~ides and carbon monoxide. and data show that concen"trations o( 

theS<! omissions are woll below levels allowed by the :-lational Ambient Air Quality Standards. 

Air quality on the North Slope is excellent. 

• :"iorth Slofie ambient air quality is consistently better than reqoired by n:uio nal EPA ;tand<.'lrds . .1.nd subsuntially benet than air qu~lity in lqecitics including lake Tahoe. Chicago. and W3Shington D.C .• and in 

m:lnv remote ;ucas. 

• ~los~ emissions from North Slope openuions come from large natural-gas turbines that powe r produc tion 

facilities. 

• North Stope nuur.o.l aa.s ls very low in sulfur and is one of the cleancsl fuels available. 

Emissions are well under federal and state environmental limits. 

• Nonh Slope air quality has consistently met all federal and state: standards. 

• Nitrogen oxide emission tevels in the Wesrern Operating Area of Prudhoe Bay are only one third of the 

limit stipulated in air quality pmn1ts {22.400 tons/year). 

• The annu::U average nili'Ojen-<lioxick coocel\uarion for l994 was 7. 7 microanms per cubu: meter. compared to 55 in WasllinJ<On. D.C .• 90 in New YO<t. and 105 inloo Angeles. 

• The annual ambient nitroaen dioxide con¢enttation for Prudhoe Bay is ltss than 8~ of the national ~bient 

air quality standard. 

• The cold. dry climate of the An:tic protects lichens from sulfur diox,idc and nitroaen oxide. which require :1 

moist. wnnn climate for siJnificanE reaction with ve1ewion. The wl'ldra is thus essentially immune from 

dama,e most of the year. 

• Sulfur dioxide le..,els ;are typically below detection. 

• Global ex.ploro.tion otnd production of petroleum is responsible for only 2.5% of total carbon dioxide 

emissions. 

Occasional black smoke emissions are necessary ror safety and are not harmful 

to the environment. 

• Black smoke emissions mull from 1\l(un.l ps flares. an essential safety system designed to handle sudden 

()ftSSure increases in Oil and Ill facilities.. 

• Black smoke evtnu are shon. infnqucnt (once a month). and well under allowable limits. 

• Material in black smoke is unburned carbon particles or soot. 

• Small volumes released have: no adverse environmental impect. 

North Slope development activities have not contributed to ''arctic haze". 

• Nouur11l SO\Irt:a or arctic haze incJudc dU$1: from Asian and African deserts, aitborM sea sah. and panicles 

from volc:u~ic eruptiON. 

• Man~ rn;Oc sources n~:lude emt.sions from fo55il fuel combustion. imeltina and ocher industrial processes. 

• Chemical finacrprintinJ and U'lljecuM"Y analysis have shown dtac the majority of the$e man~made emissions 

ori1inate in Eutopc and Asi.G. 

• NOAA reported in 1987 that Prudhoe Bay emissions do not m.a«:h the finpfl)rint of arctic hue. 

• Emissions from Prudhoe Bay would have to be tr.'lnsponed lana disc~ncft before they could be. lifted to the 

40,000-foot altitude where an:tic hille is found. 
120 

ANWRUPDATE ~pril PN~ 

Ati\'1/R 

Reducing the "Footprint" of Arctic Energy Development 

.\l;:,ny new technologies and operation~! pr:K:!ices have dramarically reduced the impact of t:xploraron-jnll n~ 

OJOd dt!'\"c!lopmenc ln the Arc tiC. All oil tield infrastructure - from wells to pipelines to productio ~ ~~ er~ 

Jnd ~upport facilities- is developed with the goal of rrunimizing environmentaJ impact. Three cJ~e ... l)( 

;uccess on the :\orth Slop< prove that the A.'iWR 1002 Area would be developed responsibly and "lth m:m· 

mal impact. 

\!orth Slope facilities cover minimal surface area. 

• Current :"li'on:h Slope f:~c lit s cover only 0.05£T of abe :-\relic Coastal Plain (8. 180 .JcresJ. 

• Prudho.e Bay producriofl facilities cover less than 10 square miles of land. 

• Prudhoe Bay opertuions co~ er only 14 of !he unitized area: the Kuparuk ott field co.,·ers n!~ 0.8"1 oi 1ts 

unitized area. 

Technological advances have dramatically reduced the surface area required for drilling 

and producing oil and gas. 

• If Prudhoe Ba)l were built today. d\e foorprint would be' 1.526 acres instead of 4. 178 II:( res (64~ smaller! 

• Today's production welt pads are 70% srMUerthan 20 years ago ( 13.5 acres vs . .t3,7 ;)Cres). 

• TO<by's production pads use 75% leu gravel than 20 years ago ( 112.700 cu. yds vs. 198.000 \: u. yds.). 

• Spacing between wellhe.ads has been reduced from l.lS feet to J!l f« t foron.shore produc-tion pads. tJnd to 10 

feet for some offshore wells . 

• Jce roads for winter con.suuction have eliminated the need ror nany gravel access roads. 

• Lo:~nd in the 1002 Ar~ impacud by pads would be reduced by 74% compared with Prudhoe Ba.): land im· 

pacted by roads would be reduced by S8%_ 

• Oil and gas ~paratin1 ftcilities in ANW'R will be at least half the size of comparable Prudhoe facilities. 

New operating practices and consolidation of facilities further reduce the impact of the oil 

industry. 

• Use of horizontal or dim=tional drillina: , slimhole drilling, and other advancemenlj conMllidal.e numerou~ 

wellheads on a sinsle pad. 

• Consoli<btion of oil-tield service-company opcBtions at Kuparuk Industrial Center as opposed to indi.,.iduoll 

le:ucs {0e:adho1"5Cl teduca area requinnnents and ensures lf"'*'U resut.uory compliance. 

• Field operarions use shared faeilities. such as .1 sina:le power-aeneratina facility ror the entire Prudhoe tield. 

Other operating practices have evolved to minimize waste and improve waste handling. 

• Use of ~w arindcr for drillin1 muds and cuttinp has eliminated the need for reserve piu. 

• RC'Sef"'e pits will noc be ~.&Sed in mt: ANWR. 1002 Nea_ 

• Improved waste manacc:mentta::hnoloa:ies and recyclin& would signiflcaruly redui;e waste and eliminate momy 

was~e streou'l\s. 

The potential 12,000-acre cumulative footprint assumed for development in the 19-millionacre Arctic National WIJdUfe Reluae is 8JIIllogous to: 

• An ...,just a mumaller than tha!accupicd by the two bt.ske<b&ll hoops (2.9 Jq. ft. I over a colleae baskt<ball 

coun (4,700 sq. ft). 

• The area occupied by home: computer (or a VCR> relative to the total floor space of a medium-sized fourbedroom home (2.500Jq. ft.l. 

• The :we:~ represenled by a small buuon lyina on the bottom of a badlwb (S40 sq. in.). 

• The area reprosen«:d by • Jqua:e 6 («too uc:h •ide relative 10 the area of a footboll field (~.600 >q. ft.>. 
121 

ANWRUPDATE 

Waste Management, Reduced Energy 

Consumption, and Recycling 

-\prilliJt)!= 

ANWR 

;\orth Slope oil field operators have taken aggressive steps to reduce energy consumption. reuse material; 

wherever possible. use environmentally friendly products. and recycle. Thousands of tons of materials -

from water and newspapers to plastic and barrels- are recycled each year. Better waste management helps 

reduce solid waste. save energy. reduce air pollution. and save water and trees. 

All oil development wastes are handled In accordance with environmental regulations. 

• Then: is no direct dlsct\arge of any material onto the tundra. 

• Oil field activities produce 65.000cubic yards of normal wastes pe:r year(sewage sludges. garbage. sc r.~p 

metals). which are disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. 

• There has ~n no bioaccumulation of heavy mecah or other ma[erials from wastewater in any pan of the 

;uclic food chaJn, 

Recycling helps enhance on recovery and Increase oil yield. 

• More than 66% of an produced water (nonhazardous) is injected in the oil n:servoir ro enhance oil recovery. 

• Enhanced recovery methods sucn as miscible ps injection and waterflooding are expected m increase the oil 

yield by 12~ at the Prudhoe Bay otl field. 

• Up [Q I~ of U"eated wiSlewuet is recycled for enhanced oil recovery. 

Industry is mo\ing towards zero discharge or drilling materials. 

• 7~% less mud is used to drill each well in Prudhoe Bay today dwl in 1989. 

• Development of new technolol)' such as wu.hlng and grindina drill cuttings has eliminated discharges into 

surface reserve pitS. 

• A.NWR will be developed without reserve pits. 

• All of the more lhan t million barrels of muds and cuttings generated in the Prudhoe Bay oil field e:.c:h year 

3te reinjected into the aeofotic formation. 

Industry bas an aaaresslve recycUn& proaram-

• All liquid huardous was~e and.9()'1; of all solid hazardot11 waste were recycled in 1994. 

• All North S!opo _., lube oil (892 blm!ls) is recycled in Alaska. 

• All lead-acid bllteries are nocycled eadl year. 

• More dwl7.300 pounds of aluminum have been re<ycled since 1991. 

• More than I million pounds of_. prodiiCI$ ha,.. boon recycled since t 99 L 

• More dwl ~ tooas of sonp ...W ha"" *" re<ycled since 1989. 

Industry recycllnpas resulted In many environmental benefits. 

• More lhatt 10.000"""" have been saved sinc:o 1991 u a .....U olrocycliq pop« producES. 

• More dwt 4 million pi lou orw .. r have been ,.vee! since 1991. 

• 33.207 fewer pounds of aif pol"'-> have been nleosed sinoe 1991. 

• 1.797 cubic yan!s of llftdlilllf*O ha"" been saved. 

• More than Z.S million kitowaus ofeneraY have been saved since t99l. 
122 

ANWRUPDATE \priii'N!i ANWR 

Reclamation and Revegetation 

~he need for r~habilitation will continue to be reduced as exploratory wells are drilled and production p!pc--

ltnes are built m the winter from ice pads and ice roads that melt without a trace in the spring. Oil tield Jevelopment in the Arctic will continue to use gravel pads as an environmentally sound means of construt.:ting a stable work platform in permafrost tundra. Industry has been conducting extensive research on :u cttc 

revegetation and rehabilitation techniques to help evaluate options for the eventual relinquishment of oil rie!J 

leases. This pro-active approach wiH help reduce impac ts to lhe environment and encoura2e the use of the 

beSl available scie ntific technology. -

Exploration sites will be rehabilitated in accordance with federal and state permits. 

• The Prudhoe Bay oil field has only j ust reached the mature phase of developmenl. and there are no maJor 

facili ties that have been abandoned. 

• Industry is actively working on reclamation and rehabilitation of exploration sites. 

• Industry is establishing plans for rehabilitation of gravel mine sites to maximize benefits to f1 sh and .... ildlife 

and provide water for industrial operations. 

... · 

Environmentally safe procedures are being Implemented to remove gravel from the 

tundra and rehabilitate sites. 

• Since 1990. more than 6t.()(X)cubic yards of gravel have been rcmo>Jed from 912 sites as part of a grav. 

cUed-tundra rehabilitation project 

• Since 1990. more than 4.165.492 square feet of aravelled tundra (100 acres) have been cleaned. 

• New techniques are being adopted, such as icing down pads prior to snow removal. to reduce the ;~.m unt of 

displaced gravel on the tundra. 

• Techniques have been tested to determine the most appropriate method of gravel removal to minimi z~ 

en vironmental impact 

• In many cases. vea:etation fully recovers in ~ season. 

• Tundra travel is prohibited except when lhc tundra is frozen and has suffteient snow cover. 

Research is continuing to evaluate revegetation techniques and options. 

• Federal and state penn its requiR WI operations sites must be returned to a condition acceptable to the: 

NSUiatory agencies. 

• Ali part of a l~year revesetation projecl. seed from 33 native plant species was harvested in 1989 3nJ 

planted in 144 plots in 1990 to ev:lluatc methods of modify ina gravel pads to encouraJe natural reve:;etl· 

tion. Variables beina tested include aravel depth. tilling. topsoil and fertilization. 

• Research is progressing on the feasibility of usina specific native aruses such as Arcrophilafuh·a to restore 

altered habiws. 

• Research on wildlife use of various natural and disturbed habitats includin1 peat roads and pave I pads u.·1ll 

continue. 

There are many examples of revegetation success. 

• BP Pad in Prudhoe Bay has a 8~'11 vepwKln-cover success race after cNu yean of reveFtation work. 

• X Pad has a 90'*' success rate in 1990 OLfcer jusc. 2 yean of re-veaewton. 

• Spine Roadll...ae Africoa and Spine Ro.d wuftout in Prudhoe Bay have a 90+'11 succcs.s rate . 
123 

ANWRUPDATE ANWR 

Water and Gravel Availability in ANWR 

Sufficient gravel and water are available on the A.'oWR coastal plain tO develop oil and gas reser\·es 10 the 

1002 Area. :><ew t<chnologies developed and used successfully for three decades at Prudhoe Bav -:ou ld be 

applied to A:"WR development. All gravel and water e"raction would require permits and wouid be corefu lly reviewed by federal and <tate agency personneL 

Gravel is the most structurally and environmentally sound construction material for 

operations and facilities on the North Slope. 

• Gravel insulates(~ permafrost and provides a. stable operating platform. 

• Gravel is natur:lll)' abundant in the 1002 Area withtn 15 feet of the su.rt'ace, as shown b:-- ~">p<:l$r!d gra ... -e l 

floodplains and by boreholes made during the 1983 and I 984 geophysicaJ surveys !a vet 1.336 line-mile::; or' 

seismic surveys were rompletedJ. 

• Grove l requirements can be minimized by consolidaring support fac ilities and by drillina 30 to 50 wells 

from a sin1le t 0-acre pad. depending on the form.ation and ch.aracteristics of the rescr.ooir. 

Surface impacts and habitat changes from gravel removal can be mitigated. 

• Upland sltes can be connected to nearby wa&cr systems and turned into water reservoirs and fbh overwin- ...... 

tering habitat; the bank can be restored successfully by contourins. addin& soil cover. and revegetation. 

• Active floodplains can be flooded and used as wau:r sources while also providing valuable tish habitat 

,. Removal of aravel does not adversely affect water quality or f'tsh habitaL 

• Gravel penni t conditions cypicaUy include restrictions on Jocadoa of the aravel pit. n:moval techniques. 

periods of operation. and teStoration requirements. 

• Monitorina is roocinely conduc:h:d to evaJuaae any unfo~n effects from a project. 

Water availability will not limit the industry's ability to operate responsibly in the desert 

environment of the coastal plain. 

• Naturally occurring- water resources (including: precipitation) are limited in the 1002 Area. but numerous 

options e~ist. 

• To protect ha.biw and waccrquality. permit conditions provide strictaitetia for wa.ter removal techniques. 

extraction periods. discharJe limits. and wa~Ct sour« restOtation plan1. 

• limited availability of fresh water will not result in a sipHicant depletion of regional water supplies tha:t 

miaht harm fish and wildlife population>. 

• An overqe upt0<3tiotl well in the 1002 Ami would roquiro oboul20.000 &allons per day or 600.000 

gallons of water per month. equivalent to che averqe monthly water ~.~se of 40 Anchor4p household$. 

• An ice pad (!CO ft. •!CO ft.) aod I mile of ice road {40ft wide) would roqui"' I ,000.000 galloos. 

• A ria camp for 60 people would tequire: 6.000 a• lions per day. 

• Ice ro'*li maintenai\Ce would require .S.OOOto 10.000 gallons perd.ay. 

Proven methods of water extraction have already been Uled in one or more of the 250 

exploratory wells drilled In the Arctic:. 

• SO... of the w.atcr used to drill the KJC wdl.sire in ANWR '111M coll«ced from 1now fences. 

• At Pnuthoe Bay. over I milliCMI pi Ions of treMCd ocean war.er ue 1Ued for waloerfloodiaa ~ of the field. 

• More !ban 100.000 pllofto of ... w-tan be deullnlfed...., day m.m • small piUI such as Endi<:oa's. 

• 300;000 pllons or fresh wacer could be p~ided c:8th day by d\e smallest of l.be available '~IICuum evapor.uor system1. 

• Deepenina or existint ponds provides wacer aDd cf'Mla overwlnteriar habicar for anadrotnoLtS fish. 

• Oesalina&:ion of sea water provkles potable watet. 

• Convmton or ar.tvel plts to water rescrvoin provides water. 

• Insulation of ponds tO proven< freezina to the bo<tom adds to thew-supply. 
124 

ANWRUPDATE \ptil I'Jt~ S 

AtiWR 

Not the "Biological Heart of the Arctic" 

The 1.5-million-acre 1002 Area is not the biological heart of the Arctic :-iational Wildlife Refu2e . The he an 

of the coastal plain is its geology and petroleum potentiaL Polar bears rarely den in the region- Jnd caribou 

often calve in mher 3reas. including Canada. Wildlife use of the region is temporary. and the wild~rne'is 

qualities of the refuge would remain untouched by development. 

The ANWR 1002 Area does not serve a vital or unique role in arctic biological 

processes. 

• Other ~oas of the .:oastal plain- includinathe Central Beaufon area- ue sianifac~tly more mponJ~nt 

bioloaically. 

• The c:enll31 Beaufon area (Prudhoe rerionl - wilh its continuum of wetJands. moist tundra. uplands. and 

foorhills- and the National Petroleum Rnerve-Aiaska INPRAJ both offer a broader ranae of habitat types 

and support more species and puer overall numbers of wikllifc than ANWR. 

• NPRA is a more c:omplere. divene. and virtually undiSturbed ecosyscem than the 1002 Area in A."fWR. 

• 'The Western Art'tic: Caribou Herd in NPRA is nearly three limn ularp u tbe Porcupine Caribou Herd. 

• Hundreds of wolverines inhabit lhe Wilderness AnL but only a few visit the 1002 Ala. 

• More than 200 moose are found in the Refup. but less than 2-' frequent the 1002 Area. 

• More than 6800 OaJI sheep arc round in the Reful•· bul they.,. rwoly _,in the 1002 Area. 

• The ~jority of wildlife- includin1 piuly bean. wolves. pcre&rinc and falcons- preferentially usc the 

f001hills or the Brooks Ran .. in ANWR. an ora already prooected as Wilclemeu. 

1002 Area used by Porcupine Caribou Herd with sipiftcant annual variation. 

• The Porcupine Caribou Herd uses the coutal plain for only 6 to 8 weeks per year. 

• Hi1hly v3Jiable use su1aests adjacent re1ions are equally acceptable. 

• The distribution of caribou calvinJ in the 1002 Area is latply a function of snow conditions. 

• larae numbcn of cows have used the Jaao uplands. but only infrequently do more than SO% of the cows 

calve in the 3teL 

Fleeting wildlife use of 1002 Area Is Important, but hardly critical. 

• The U.S. Fish ond Wildlife Setvic:c hu confirmed only f<Mif polo<l>cardcM in the t002 Area since 1989. 

• The mojori<y of riven CR>IIiftl the 1002 Area do 001 suppon filii _.u.ions. 

• The I 002 Ala has CM> scandini·Walef wetlands suitable f« waacdowl h&bital. 

• tn some yean. snow pese use rhe 1002 Areu durina sa.ain1 for 2 weeks in 01utumn. 

• The distribution of mmt birds usina the ara is hi&hly variable. 

• The vas~ rnljori~Y. of blrds winter in different countries far from the: 1002 Area. 

• Only6spec;.ofbiftls .. -1002 Ana rosidcftls. 

• Areoas ouiSide lhe 1002 Ana bouadlries suppon more Nn«a swans (9~ pUs of tundra swans nested in the 

1002 Area in t989: 135 pairs ......S.rothe -• in the l'nldlloo Bay and K_,.t oil fields). 

ANWR Is not a pristine wilderness. 

• The rcsion wu UMill exceasively ror mndccr hadinl in the piiiC.. 

• The 1002 Area has active ud abondonecl militory defense--· 

• The 1002 Area it horne co villqc of Kak10v'k with 220 lnupial raidents. 

• 1M 1002 oarn is U'3versed extensively by native subsiscenc:c huawl 011 snow rMetlines lnd A TVs in SC31"Ch 

of wildlife to lhe south in the foochills o( che Brooks Ran ... 

• The 1002 oate3 is used for hun,ina and fishin1. 
125 

ANWRUPDATE \pril t•N~ 

ANWR 

Not "America's Last Wilderness" 

Only the 100: .-\rea of the .-\rctic :-.lational Wildlife Refuge can be considered for development. The remainmg 

18.3 million acres would still be off limits, with 8 million acres permanently designated as "W'ilderness. The 

small fraction of the total wildlife refuge is not a pristine, untouched wilderness area. There are communities and military developments. The wilderness values of the refuge would not be impacted by development 

of the I 002 Area. 

ANWR is not the last remaining Alaskan Wilderness. 

• More than 192 million acres of the State of Alaska are already protected in Wilderness Areas. National 

Parks. National Preserves, National Forests. National Wildlife Refuges. National Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

State Parks. State Preserves. State Critical Habitat Areas, State Marine Parks, and may other federal and 

state conservation untts. 

• Wilderness areas in Alaska equal the combined area of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, West Virginia. and ...... --

Maryland. 

• New government proposals could add over 12 million acres of new federal Wilderness across Alaska. 

leaving the state with over two-thirds of all federally designated Wilderness. 

• Other Wilderness Areas exist that provide more complete, diverse and virtually undisturbed habitat. 

ANWR is not the last remaining undisturbed arctic Wilderness. 

• More than half a million acres of Arctic Alaskan coastline between the 1002 Area and the Canadian border 

are already designated as Wilderness. adjoining Canada's 3·million-acre Northern Yukon National Park. 

• More than 943 miles of Arctic Alaskan coastline to the west of the Colville River is nor open to development: much of this is the 23-million-acre National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPRA), ~hich is under 

consideration for National Wildlife Refuge status. 

• Wilderness in ANWR after development of the 1002 Area would be larger than South Carolina. 

Industry is not seeking to open the Wilderness Area to development. 

• The 1002 Area is not designated as Wilderness; it was set aside for special study because of its unique 

petroleum potential. 

• Only 1.5 milfiOn acres (8%) of the 19.8-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge are under consideration for leasing. 

• The Office of Technology Assessment has estimated that suuctures and pipelines would directly affect 

between 5,000 and 7,000 acres of the coastal plain. less Ihan 1% of the surface of the 1.5-million-acre 1002 

Area. 

• 99% of the 1002 Area will remain untoac:hed. even under full leasing. 

• Afcer two decades of experience in the Alaskan Arctic. there are no scientific studies by regulatory agencies. academic institutions. or industry that ba...-e ever" documented a population decline of any species in 

response to arctic: oil field operations. 
126 

ANWRUPDATE ANWR 

Causeways in the Beaufort Sea 

CJ.useways are gravel structures thaf have been used to access nearshore oH and gas reserves in 1he shJ.ihJ\\ 

waters of the nearshore Beauiort Sea. They represent an environmentally sound alternative and do not ad· 

verse!y impact fish or the local oceanography. Causeways also provide a stable platform for wells. production facilities. and ptpehnes. 

Gravel islands and roadways constructed in shallow nearshore areas on the Alaska 

Beaufort Sea serve multiple uses • 

.. Provide production pad for oil reserves located roo far offshof'e' for onshore drilling. 

• Provide access to deep water for barge d();k.mg and offloading production modules. 

• Enhance otl recovery and improve production effictency by providing access to deep sea water usM in 

waterflooding oil reservoirs. 

~ Provide a $table surface for suppon of pipelines. 

Causeways have signlftcant environmental benefits. 

• Provide year~round acce:5s to offshore sites- access that is vital for emergency response. 

• Increase ability to respond to oil spills and enhance capacity to contain oil spills. 

• Help aVtJid potential damage ro pipelines from sea ~~ movement. 

There is no scientific evidence or adverse effects on any Osh species. 

• .~seney concerns of pou:ible adverse effecr.s on~ fnh habitat and populatiofts are unfounded. 

• Over one miUion linn of data have been collected in l$ feu'S of envlronmenu.l studies. 

• More than S60 million has been spent forenvtronmenW monilOrinJ since 1981. 

• Changes in temperatun: and salinity at EndK:oct are wittrin limits predicted by the projet;:t EIS. wnfintd to 

the immedlo:te vicinity of the strUCture. and within ruses of natural variation for the qlon. 

• Nonh Stope Borough monitoriAl stUdy concluded that fish populatiot'ls and fisheries have not been ad~ 

versely affected by Ctf:useways. 

• Catch levels of Native subsistcn(e fisheries an:: compwable to pre-<:onsuuctlon levels. 

• The highe$t comtn~m:i&l cacch on record QCC:urred with bod\ the West Doek an4 £ndieott causeways in 

ploo:e OB61 fish. in 1988). 

Causeways are proven technology ror arctic conditions. 

• C4\usew3.ys are an environmenWly safe meilns of accessina ne.nhore reserves. 

• Alaska stale and localaovemmems hav~ consistend)l supported causeways. 

• ProjcciS are hiJhly rqvlaled one! moniiOfed by U.S. Anny Corps of En,ineen. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. Natioftal Marine Fisberia Servic;e. and the U.S. Environmental Protection AJellcy. in addition lo 

state and locai~Qvemtncdt qeneies. 

• 1'lle c.....,..y ._.,-. lndustty one! c11e COf'PS ofEnsilwn....,. dw reasonably bmoched 

causeways may be """of....m ._; ... ""'hnolotia for oil one! ps dovelcpmoot ill d1e ...,.~~ore 

lleaul'ort Sea. 
127 

ANWRUPDATE .\pril ~~ ~~ 

ANWR 

Petroleum and Petrochemicals: Thousands of Uses 

.-\.I most 6.000 products are made from hydrocarbons - just a few are listed below . Without oi l. ou r !i,_, 

would change dramatically. The complex molecules in crudt oil.ue used to create manv :'Oc..:hem cJ.1 N ... ,.._:. 

ucts lik:~ m~dicine. soaps. plastics and many items we use every day. · · 

Recreational. T 1)\ -.. r:~to' s®. Butb1e® • Basketballs and backboards 

• ~t i~ l'll y :-.iorphin Power Rangers® • re·le~ ®. r:.in gear. wet suits. 

.... l,U_ • FootbJ.IIs. Joccer ba lls. football surviv3l suits. hip waders 

--,.. helmets. tenms racquets • Sleds. kayaks. limbing ropes 

- • Hockev sticks. masks. helmets. • Water .:~ nd snow skis. ski poles 

Home 

Bathroom 

• ~ 

Kitchen 

4 

Industrial 

... 

Office 

tlt 

ilnd shin gu:u-ds and boots. mins. hats 

• Athlcw:: shoes • Poly-whatever clolhine 

• T ~m . tarps. mosquito nenin& • Fishi ng poles. li nes and nets 

• TVs. VCRs. video cassettes. 

tapes, COs, records. stereos 

• Telephones. pasers. clocks. 

radios. headphones 

• Cloth;ng. shoci. boc<s. jewetry. 

plastic hanftrS 

• Medic ine. aspirin, bandaaes 

• Cteanin& aaenl!. scrub bru.shes, 

hydroaen pero:~~:ide 

• Containers for almost everythina 

• Braces for yoor 1eeth 

• Glas~s and contaec lenses 

• Floors. counter tops. rauccl5 

• Applianct:s. blenders. toas«ers. 

~ffee mWrs. eoffce. &rinders. c<J n openers 

P;>per produc<S. plastic wrap. 

aluminum foil 

• Gaoollne. jet t\lel, ~ne • 

propooe 

• Heatina oil. lubricatin& oil 

• P=ffi•. wand aruse . 

• Computers. typewriiCf>. keyboards ancJ screens, printers. 

disks. thtee-rina bindeR 

• ~fephoncs. copieR. racs;mite 

machines. answerina mKhiQa, 

c:llculator1 

• C.:u-pcts. russ. upholstery. couch 

cushions 

• lamps. elcccricll wirina. J«Uril)' 

systems. light fix tures, fans 

• Books. newspapers (paper and 

into. artwort lpaintinas) 

• Cosmetics. lipstick. moisturizers 

• Soap. toothbrushei. tOO(hpaste. 

shampoo, bubble balh. baby 

powder 

• Linoleum. bathtubs. IOilets. 

counter topS. cabinets. sinks 

• Dishes, a:las.scs. Tuppe:rwate® 

conllliners. TeOonS pots and 

pans. plaslic drink bottles ond 

milk containers 

• Cleaners, insecticides. glue 

• Aavorinas and preservati~C$ 

• Mcdiclll icCms like-pi"ottlJaes. 

sur1ical supplies. crutches 

• S.fet)' windshields. c:~ .!ires::. antifreeze 

• Ph«oarap~~ic film and toners for 

printtn and. copten 

• OffiCe par1irions. ~eneer for 

r'umitun (dcslu. bookcases. 

chain. tables) 

• Snowboards. '-"tnd urf n,z r. ~_,..~rj , 

.1nd saib. ~::~ilboom ~ 

• Back.packs. 'Sieepin~ ba~;; 

• Thermo)-!) u~ s 

• Swim gogil~s . ..,w jm 'iut!). ii ni . 

Kuba lle.lr. snorkelin,z .:e-... r 

• ln~ ne-;kates. k!! kl~e: 

• Bikes. f:lili;.: helmets. t'-tl.:~! ,ht.)rt:o 

• Blankets. foam for mJttrc:ss .:tnJ 

pillows, linens 

• Paint. w31lpaper. b!inds . ..:uM.:nns. 

insulation. garba,ge an~ 

• Garden tools. potting ~il. lawn 

chairs. ho~s. sprinkler.; 

• Shower curtliM. w;uer i~~ 

plastlc fi.,.tures. tt'v.el ra.::U 

• 01apcrs. baby bonlc!s 

• Pert'umes. ha1r d~.: . air fresheners 

nail polish. stOI.:k.ings. hair s.pra)'· 

• Blow dryers. hair .:urle:rs 

• Shelf paper. Jish drainers 

• Dog and cJ.t food 

• Ga.rba(fe ba&s. plastic -hanJied 

scissors and kni,efl 

• B.:.ueries and ~.:mJI<s 

• Asphalt pavcmc-nl 

• Std.ina an<l screens 

• FenHizm. insul:lllon. ~ala ts 

• Firefiahlins equ pm~nt 

• Desk acc:c:ssoric:s. ptn:s and inkS;. 

tape, labels. corre~.: tion rluids 

• Coffee otke~. Styrofoam® 

c:o(fec stirrers. pl asric ~poo s .• ,.,. 

anifi.ciaJ cre:.mcrs 

• Anificial plants 
128 

ORAL TESTIMONY OJ' 

DELBERT REXFORD 

SPECW., ASSISTANT TO 

MAYOR GEORGE N. ABMAOGAK, SR. 

NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA 

BEFORE 

THE UNITED STATES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

RESOURCES COMMl'ITEE 

THE Ftn'URE OF THE COASTAL PLAIN AREA OF THE 

ARCI'IC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

AND THE ARCI'IC On. RESERVE 

August 3, 1995 

I am Delbert Rexford, Special Auistant to Gcorae N: Ahmaogak, Sr., 

Mayor of the North Slope Borouah in the State of Aluka. I come before your 

Committee today in support of leaislation to open the Coutal Plain of tbe Arctic 

NatioDal Wilc1life Rcfu&c (" ANWR"~ to oil and au exploration aDd development. 

• Tbe North Slope Boroup 

I would lib to tab a momeDt to tell you about my home, the North Slope 

Soroqh. AJ a political IUbdiviaiOD of tbc State of Alub, tbe Borou&h covers 
129 

about 89,000 square miles of the northernmost area of the State. The Boroup is 

the largest municipality in this c:ountry - made up of mountains, rivers, plains of 

permafrost-covered tundra, and 2,600 miles of Arctic coastline. The large 

~ority of the Boroup's more tban six thousand five hundred residents are 

lnupiat Eskimo. 

• The lnuplat Inhabitants of the North Slope 

Like myself, the vast majority of the Borough's population are Inupiat 

Eskimos. Our ancestors have inhabited the area for thousands of years, survivin& 

the hanh climate primarily throup subsistence hunting. Like most of our people, 

I am a· subsistence hunter of whales, birds, fish, seals, caribou and other wildlife 

to feed and clothe my family - and to share with other residents of our Villaaes. 

As all Inupiat hunters do, I am passing on to my children (and through them to 

succeecliDJ aeneracions) the tradition of subsistence activities. Inupiats would not 

choose to do anything that could harm the centuries of tradition underlying our 

Native way of life. 

Some people have ttated that" the Coastal Plain of ANWR is a pristine 
130 

wilderness that should be closed off forever to human activity. This is simply 

wroua. It is not an unpopulated wildemcu. One of our ci&ht VilJaacs is in the 

Coastal Plain. It il also the site of a ~or military facility. The Coutal Plain is 

used by our people for subaistcncc aDd other purpose~. The North Slope is home 

to thoull!lds of Inupiat people. With the riaht decisions ou resource development 

- The Benefttl of on aacJ Gu AdMty to the Boroup. 

Aa many of you lalow, in 1968, the Dation's larpat commercial oil 

dilcovcry wu mldc at PNdhoe Bay, OD Alub'1 North Slope. North Slope oU 

hu provided beaefits DOt only for the people of the North Slope Boroup, but for 

all people in Alub, aDd thtouahout \he UDitecl Stat.ea. Pocleral tax reveauea from 

oil devclopmoot are su.bltlntill aDd over oiahtY·ftve pcrcem of the State of 

Alub's pubUc proaru111 are fimd.cd throl.lJh oil rcvenuea. 

In 1912, the North Slope Boroush wu established u a home rule BorouJh. 

Prom modest beainninp, the Boroup bu developed iDto a modern mwrlcipal 
131 

nation, and providina essential public services never before available to the Inupiat 

people of the Arctic. The North Slope Borou1h and State proJWilS are now 

brin&in& medical, educational, sanitation, fire protection, police, search and 

rescue, and other essential public services to its residents. These benefits of 

modem American civilization, common in the rest of the nation, have been built 

on the foundation of the North Slope Borou&)l and the presence of the oil industry 

and the tax base it generates. This tax base also makes possible reautatory actions ~..::.· 

which protect our reJion's environment, fish and wildlife, and subsistence 

resources: 

.. on development can aHJist with environmental protettion 

The oriainal development of oil at Prudhoe Bay in the late 1960s and early 

1970. caused concem amoq our Inupi.at peoplo. Survival on the North Slope 

required knowledae of and respect for the weather, the animal~, and the land. The 

comin& of oil production and new teelmoloay caused concem and led to fear that 

our bome mi&ht somehow ~ harmed. 

The experience of the residents of the North Slope Boroujh over the past 25 
132 

yean demoDstrate that these fears were UDfounded. AI a local aovemment, we 

have eurcile4 our replatory powers to bold tbe oil iDdustry to strict 

envtronmemalad public health Jtandarda. The multi have been an unqualified 

suceeu. Ov.r fish IDd wildlife resources arc tlouri.111iq alonpide oil ad au 

production. for n•mpte, the Central Arctic Carlboll Herd, which occuplea 

Pradboe Bay IDd other North Slope oil fields, hu JI'O'Wil from 3,000 in 1972 to 

23,000 today. 

• We Deed Pnlalpt ANWR Exploratlc.a adlAIIIDa 

No aae dllpata that tbe Coutal PlaiD is the Dltioa'1 belt prolpeCt for major 

DeW oil ad au reaervos. This doea DOt DeCOIIId1y 1DII.Il that there will be a 

dllcovery to equal PnldJIGo Bay. Yot, the poeendal is there to IU'ib cme or more 

Pnldhoe Bay-atzo on fioldl. BxploradoD 011 the Coutai Plli1l lllUit beJin 10011, 

however. to allow COIIIIIIIfCJa1 nllei'¥CI fouDd iD the Coula1 PlaiD to be traDipOrted 

to marbta iD the lower 48 ..... If Prudboo Bay 111111 OCher teaemll coatbme to 

be deploted, tbe Trau-Alllka PipeUDe SJ1Cem will OWIIItllally become UDeCOIIOIDic 

ud be redncl ad dillllllltled. If tbiJ happeaa, ilia UDI1bly that Coutal PlalJ1 oil 

. -- -

ad adler P"""'d•J Nonh Slope oil twda, _.... ad off..llaore, coald ever be 
133 

produced. Th.iJ would also mean that other oU discoveries 011. the North Slope may 

DOVer reach commercial produetioc. 

If oU prod.uctioc COll.tinues ita decline, many of out childrell, who have now 

cxperi.ODCed Ufe with some of the public services that most Americans take for 

.arantecl. may have to choose to leave the North Slope. Others, who are away at 

colleae or teclmical schools will not have the option of retumin& to their homes, 

their familiel and their culture. If that bappefts, the Inv.plat Eskimo people aDd 

their unique culture, lanauqe aDd trlditi011.11 would become cothiDa more than a 

memory. 

• Immediate Needs on tbe North Slope: Impact Aid 

I must also brlna up 011.e issue of arcat importaDcO to our Boroup and, in 

particullr, to tbe viJla&o of Kaktovik. If the Coastal PlaiD. of ANWl\ is opened to 

dovelopmem, there will be a leqthy period before my tuea are aeaerated. The 

time between JeaaiDa ad oil production in the Arctic ia 10 to 15 years. As 

Coutal P1aiD. developmcmt eba:a&es the omploymoat bale in JealWwik, eldatiq 

pubHc ICI"ricee will have to be areatly expuded. Now public needl and problems 
134 

will be encountered. The Villaae of ICaktovik is not a tuiDa entity; the land 

aroUDd Kaktovik is not subject to real estate taus because it is owned by the 

Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and remains undeveloped. Accordinaly, it hu been 

the North Slope Borouah that bu built, and continued to mainhlin and supply 

public facilities and services to the villaae. 

Be1q forced to pay up froDt for liplf!cant expansion of servicea will have 

a clevutatiq effect on tbe North Slope Boroup's alreldy strctchecl budget. On 

behalf of tbe Mayor, I urae the Committee to iDclude proviaions for Impact Aid 

iD the leJialation to open the Coural PlaiD. 

• CODdulloa: tbe North Slope Boroqb Sapportl ANWR Leulni 

On behalf of tbe people of tbe North Slope, I appreciate the opportunity to 

preiCDt thiJ testimony to your Committee. AI the Mayor's Special Aaistant, I can 

state decisively that tho vut ~ty of people of tbe North Slope enthusiastically 

mpport the pre~CDCC of the oil iDduatry on ~ land. OpeaiDa· the small 1.5 

million IC!e Coutal Plain of ANWR to oiliDilau 1euiq IIIII np!oration il the 

rfPt tbiq to do. Tbia coaclulion II buecl on baCh lllll)'IJI IIIII 25 yean of 
135 

experience at Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope oil fiekls. As I discussed above, 

the potential resources of ANWR's Coastal PlaiA are of critical importance to the 

future of current North Slope Boroup residents, the fature of their children, and 

the future of aenerations yet to come. On behalf of Mayor Ahmao&ak and all the 

residents of the North Slope, I implore this Coqrcss to make the only loaical, 

rational and reasonable decision it can on this issue: vote to open the Coastal 

Plain of ANWR. to environmentally sound and properly regulatecl oil and au 

leasing, exploration and developmeDt. 

Thank you. 
136 

STATEMENT OF 

MAYORGEORGEN.AHMAOG~S~ 

NORTHSLOPEBOROUGH,ALASKA 

TESTIMONY 

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

BEFORE 

THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

August 3, 1995 

I am George N. Ahmaogak, Sr., Mayor of the North Slope Borough in the State of Alaska. 

submit this testimony today in support of legislation to open the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge ("ANWR") to oil and gas exploration and development. 

1. The North Slope Borough 

The North Slope Borough is a political subdivision of the State of Alaska. The Borough's 

jurisdiction covers approximately 89,000 square miles of the northernmost region of the State. As the 

largest municipality in the United States, the Borough is made up of mountains, rivers, plains of 

permafrost-covered tundra, and 2,600 miles of Arctic coastline. The more than 6,500 residents of the 

North Slope are located in eight sparsely-populated villages ranging from Point Lay with !50 residents, 

to Barrow with 3,300 residents, to Kaktovik with 240 residents. The large majority of the Borough's 

residents are lnupiat Eskimo. Most residents of the North Slope live in coastal villages. None of the 

villages can be reached by road; air travel and telecommunications provide the necessary links for our 

citizens. Nevertheless, we are one people: the people of the North Slope. 
Stal<!-t rcprdilll lllc c-1 Plain of ANWR 

by Mayor GcofJI! N. All....opk, Sr. 

North Slope Bo""'lh, Aluka 

Aupt 3,1995 

Pa1el 

137 

One must understand that, in the enonnous expanse of the Borough's territory, there is almost no 

private land; it is all owned by the United States, the State of Alaska, or Native Regional and Village 

Corporations. The Borough, however, has civil jurisdiction over the entire area and therefore is 

responsible for the significant infrastructure maintenance and development needed by the people. 

Accordingly, the decision of the 104th Congress with respect to the future management ofthe Coastal 

Plain area of the 19 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is of tremendous importance to the North 

Slope Borough and its residents. 

2. The Inupiat Inhabitants of the North Slope 

The vast majority of the Borough's population are Inupiat. Our ancestors have inhabited the area 

for thousands of years, surviving the harsh climate primarily through subsistence hunting. In addition to 

being Mayor of the Borough, I am a Whaling Captain. I am also a subsistence hunter of birds, fish, seals, 

caribou and other wildlife to feed and clothe my family -- and to share with other residents of our 

Villages. Ours is a culture of interdependence and sharing. As alllnupiat hunters do, I am passing on 

to my children (and through them to succeeding generations) the tradition of subsistence activities. I 

would not choose to do anything that could harm the centuries of tradition underlying our Native way of 

life. 

In short, we people of the Arctic have an ageless tradition of relying on the land and the sea to 

provide the necessities for our families and villages. We pass along the ancient ways to our children and 
s ......... repnliD& 11oe c~ rt.i• .r ANWR 

by Moyor C..,.. N. Ah11100pk, Sr. 

Nort~ Slope Boroup, Alolko 

A•aust 3, 1995 

, ••• 3 

138 

grandchildren, taking care to teach them that harm to the land will most likely result in the death of the 

Inupiat culture. 

Some people have stated that the Coastal Plain of ANWR is a pristine wilderness that should be 

closed off forever to human activity. This is simply wrong. It is not an unpopulated wilderness. One 

of our eight Villages is in the Coastal Plain. It is also the site of a major military facility. The Co~l 

Plain is used by our people for subsistence and other purposes. The North Slope is home to thousands 

of Inupiat. With the right decisions on resource development and management, it will remain so for 

generations to come. 

3. The Beoefita of Oil and Gu Activity to the Borough 

In 1968, the nation's largest commercial oil discovery was made at Prudhoe Bay, on Alaska's 

North Slope. This discovery has lead to enormous technological, economic, and social change. North 

Slope oil has provided benefits not only for the people of the North Slope Borough, but for all people in 

Alaska, and throughout the United States. Federal tax revenues from oil development are substantial; over 

eighty-five percent of the State of Alaska's public programs are funded through oil revenues. 

In 1972, the North Slope Borough was established as a home rule Borough. From modest 

beginnings, the Borough has developed into a modem municipal system responsible for more territory than 

any other local government in the nation. The Borough provides essential public services never before 

available to the Inupiat people of the Arctic. 
Statement repnlinc tile Coutal Plain of ANWR 

by Mayor Georp N. Ahmaogak. Sr. 

Nortll Slope Borough, Al11kl 

Aupst 3,1995 

Page 4 

139 

North Slope oil has created jobs and improved the quality of life for many Borough families. The 

North Slope Borough and State programs are now bringing medical, educational, sanitation, fire protection, 

police, search and rescue, and other essential public services to its residents. These benefits of modern 

American civilization, common in the rest of the nation, have been built on the foundation of the North 

Slope Borough and the presence of the oil industry. Oil and gas development created the necessary tax 

base to finance not only needed public services, but also regulatory actions that protect our region's 

environment, fish and wildlife, and subsisten 

Close to three quarters of the Borough's annual revenues are generated by property taxes on oil 

field equipment and installations. Close to two thirds of our workforce is employed by the Borough, and 

much of the remaining workforce works directly for the oil industry, or indirectly by providing contractual 

and oil field services. The residents of the North Slope Borough do not want to return to a substandard 

existence or the conditions that existed 25 years ago. Yet, in order to avoid that, oil production needs 

to continue on the North Slope. The Borough believes that close cooperation between industry and our 

local government can ensure that environmentally sound development takes place that will benefit our 

residents, the State of Alaska and the entire nation. 

4. Impaet of ANWR Coastal Plain Leasing on the North Slope Borough 

As the elected leader of the North Slope Borough, serving my third term as Mayor, it is my 

obligation to have the highest interests of my electorate in mind at all times. 

As Mayor, I can state decisively that the vast majority of people of the North Slope enthusiastically 
State_, repnlillc t1oo c-1 Pllill or ANWR 

by M.oyor Georp N. A._.., Sr. 

Nortll Slope .......... AlMiul 

Allplfl,l995 

hp5 

140 

support the presence of the oil industry on our land. Opening the small 1.5 million acre Coastal Plain of 

ANWR to oil and gas leasing and exploration is the right thing to do. This conclusion is based on an 

analysis and 25 years of experience at Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope oil fields. It is the product of 

a combination of first-hand scientific, economic, and traditional cultural experience and knowledge. 

The North Slope Borough has had close to twenty-five years of experience with onshore oil and 

gas exploration and development We have teamed that our traditional culture can be balanced and 

enhanced with such development. Our local regulations and ordinances have been enacted to both protect 

subsistence hunting and to allow development. 

I ask members of this Committee and the Congress to keep in mind that residents of the North 

Slope Borough live in a very remote area of the world. The future of our children and the quality of our 

lives are detennined in major respects by the short-term, and often narrow, policy objectives of the oil 

industry, the Alaska State government, federal agencies and the Congress. As the representative of the 

people of the North Slope, the Borough must work to ensure that the activities of the industty, the Stille 

and Federal agencies are conducted in ways that R>COgllize and are consistent with the interests of the 

residents of the North Slope. For most people who call the North Slope home, the villages that make up 

the Borough are places to raise fillllilies, maintain a unique Native culture, and continue traditional 

subsistence activities while eqjoying the benefits - jobs, schools, medical facilities, communications, 

housing - that oil has mlde possible. 
Slate- repnlilll die c-1 Plllia ol ANWR 

b)' Ma1W c..,. N. All ........ St-. 

Nerlll Slope ........... AIMb 

Aupll3, lftS 

Pap6 

141 

5. Tile People or tlae North Slope Have Learned That Oil Development Can Co-eut Witla 

Eavironmeotlll Protectioa 

The original development of oil at Prudhoe Bay in the laie 1960s and early 1970s caused concern 

among the lnupiat of the North Slope. Survival on the North Slope tcquired knowledge of and respect 

for the weather, the animals, and the land. The coming of oil production and new technology caused 

concern and led many to fear that our home might somehow be banned. 

The experience of the residents of the North Slope Borough over the past 2S years demonSirate 

that these fears were unfounded. A$ a local government, we have exercised our n=gu1atory powers to hold 

the oil industly to strict environmental and public health standards. The results have been an unqualified 

sU<X:eSS. Our fish and wildlife teSOUI\1e$ are flourishing alongside oil and gas production. For example, 

the Central An::tie Caribou Herd, whieh oeeupies Prudhoe Bay and other North Slope oil f~elds, has grown 

from 3,000 in 1972 to 23,000 today. 

6. Wily tlae North Slope Boroqh Supporb Pro•pt ANWlt Eiploratioa aacl Leula1 

No one disputes that the Coastal Plain is the nation's best prospect for major new oil and gas 

reserves. This does not necessarily mean that there will be a discovery to equal Prudhoe Bay. Yet, the 

potential is there to strike one or more Prudhoe Bay-size oil fields. Quite simply, the Coastal Plain of 

ANWR presents the single most important option available to the nation to add JlU!jor new domeltic 

reserves and production. 
Statemeot "l•nlill&tbe c-tal Plaia of ANWR 

by Mayor Georp N. Ah .. opk, Sr. 

Nortll Slope llonMICh, Aluko 

August 3, 1995 

P•c• 7 

142 

Exploration on the Coastal Plain must begin soon, however, to allow commercial reserves found 

in the Coastal Plain to be transported to markets in the lower 48 states. If the Coastal Plain is not opened 

to exploration in the near future, there is an increasing risk that Prudhoe Bay and other reserves will be 

depleted. This means that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System will eventually become uneconomic and be 

retired and dismantled. If this happens, it is unlikely that Coastal Plain oil and other potential North Slope 

oil fields, onshore and offShore, could ever be produced. This would also mean that other oil discoveries 

on the North Slope may never reach commercial production. 

If exploration and leasing on ANWR's Coastal Plain does not begin soon, the quality of life for 

the people of the North Slope may well regress to that of a third-world nation. Prudhoe Bay's oil 

production peaked in 1990 and now is in decline. Oil production is down from over 2 million barrels per 

day to 1.5 million barrels per day. Absent new discoveries, we will soon see our Borough tax base 

seriously eroded. This means the minimal public services we enjoy today will be cut back, or even 

eliminated. Further, if oil production continues its decline, many of our children, who have now 

experienced life with some of the public services that most Americans take for granted, may have to 

choose to leave the North Slope. Others, who are away at college or technical schools, will not have the 

option of returning to their homes, their families and their culture. If that happens, the Inupiat Eskimo 

people and their unique culture, languages and traditions would become nothing more than a memory. 
SUite- ropntiaa 111e Coutal Plaia or ANWR 

by M.yer George N. Ahmupk, Sr. 

North Slope Bo ........ Alatb 

Aaalllt 3, 1995 

Pogo 8 

143 

7. Immediate Needs on the North Slope: Impaet Aid 

I must also bring up one issue of great importance to our Borough and, in particular, to the village 

of Kaktovik. If the Coastal Plain of ANWR is opened to development, there will be a lengthy period 

before any taxes are generated. The time between leasing and oil production in tbe Arctic is I 0 to 15 

years. 

The Village of Kaktovik is not a taxing entity; the land around Kaktovik is not subject to real 

estate taxes becanse it is owned by the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation and remains undeveloped. 

Accordingly, it has been the North Slope Borough that has built, and continued to maintain and supply, 

public facilities and services to the villages, as well as exercising zoning, planning permitting and other 

regulatory responsibilities. As Coastal Plain development changes the employment base in Kaktovik, 

existing public services will have to be greatly expanded. New public needs and problems will be 

encountered. 

Being forced to pay up front for siguificant expansion of services will have a devastating effect 

on the North Slope Borough's already stretched budget. There is much precedent for impact aid in areas 

dominated by federal lands. I urge the Committee to include provisions for Impact Aid in the legislation 

to open the Coastal Plain. With advanced planning and modest financial aid, Kaktovik and other areas 

can be ready to play the necessary roles to support exploration and development. 
Statement rqanlinc the Coutal Plain of ANWR 

by Mayor Georce N. AbmaUJak. Sr. 

North Slope Boroucb, Aluka 

Auguot 3, 1995 

Page 9 

8. Summary and Conclusion 

144 

On behalf of the people of the North Slope, I appreciate the opportunity to present this testimon)' 

to your Committee. As I discussed above, the potential resources of ANWR's Coastal Plain are of critical 

importance to the future of current North Slope Borough residents, the future of their children, and the 

future of generations yet to come. I implore this Congress to make the only logical, rational and 

reasonable decision it can on this issue: vote to open the Coastal Plain of ANWR to environmentally 

sound and properly regulated oil and gas leasing, exploration and development. 

Thank you. 

'''C 
145 

. ...,~ 

~~ ARCO Alaska, Inc. 

Statement of Michael R. Joyce 

Senior ConsuHant, Biological Sciences 

ARCO Alaska, Inc. 

before the 

CommHtee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Hearings on Opening the Coastal Plain 

of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

to 011 Exploration and Development 

August 1, 1995 
146 

Mr. Chairman. members of the Committee, my name is Mike Joyce. 1 am the 

Senior Biologist with ARCO Alaska stationed in Anchorage. We appreciate the 

invitation to update you on a few of the more important biological factors 

related to Arctic oil field operation and management. In the brief time I have 

today I will only be able to address some of the issues that should be assessed in 

making a decision about the feasibility of future oil field development in the 

Arctic Oil Reserve. I have over 21 years of direct experience in planning, 

building, and managing how oil field operations interact with Arctic wildlife, 

hence I hope we have the chance to talk about a few additional issues in the 

time allotted to us for questions and answers. 

I have been active on the Arctic Oil Reserve issue since the mid 1980's. I have 

always been puzzled why so little credibility is given to the existing biological 

record of the North Slope oil fields. Those opposed to oil development in the 

Arctic Oil Reserve most frequently state that their opposition is based on the 

serious damage that will occur to local wildlife and their habitats. Where fs the 

evidence that supports those concerns?? Why do these opponents continue to 

either ignore or discredit the evidence collected over 20 years of operating 

Arctic oil fields? Much of that evidence was collected by the state or federal 

resource agencies. Why Is it that only their assumed negative impacts from 

existing oil fields. by the way, which are all based on old technology transfer to 

a new area, while all the positive conclusions, like caribou will pass under on 

elevated pipeline. will not correlate with a new development in a new 

location? Why do they expect the animals 80 miles east to behave completely 

different from those for which we have over 20 years of evidence. That 

evidence is clear. By all defensible scientific accounts the fish and wildlife 

resources in the Prudhoe Bay region ore healthy. productive and perform 

normally. Animals living 80 miles east should be expected to behave the same 

way. 

Let's look at some of that biological record. Lets take the two animals that are 

most sensitive to development. One mammal and one bird. Most of you know 

the record for population growth for the Central Arctic Caribou Herd. That herd 

has grown 8 fold since the fii'St population estimate in 1972. The lost good full 

herd estimate was in 1992 and concluded there were about 23.500 animals. The 

Alaska Deportment of Fish and Game ( ADF&Gl conducted a new survey this 

summer but has not yet tallied it's count. So, as you know, the oil fields hove 

not affected the population growth of the Central Arctic Herd (CAH). But let's 

look at another aspect of caribou and oil fields and habitat requirements. This 

summer the Central Arctic Herd calved for the most part south of the Kuporuk oil 

f~eld, about 15 to 20 miles inland, as has been its normal pattern for the post 7 to 
147 

2 

8 years. Caribou calving locations are driven in large part by annual tundra 

snow melt patterns and in normal years the coastal strip, within 10 miles or so of 

the Beaufort Sea. Is the last to become snow free. Hence, this coastal strip is not 

critical for successful calving. and indeed calving typically does not occur this 

far north. However, this coastal strip is very important to these caribou during 

the insect harassment season in July. These some habitat use and distribution 

patterns hold true for both the Porcupine and Center Arctic caribou herds. The 

oil fields within the range of the Central Arctic Herd are mostly within this coastal 

strip. Thus. an important question is have the existing oil fields impeded relief 

from the annual insect harassment? The answer is no. In fact, we have seen a 

very interesting adaptation in the way these caribou respond during this insect 

season to the presence of our oil development. During hot. wind free periods 

when insects are most active, hundreds and collectively thousands of caribou 

will move onto our gravel pads and stand there for hours to minimize their insect 

harassment. Tests have shown Insects numbers to be substantially less on the 

gravel pads. The two exhibits I brought with me illustrate this behavior. 

Remembering the evidence tells us the Porcupine Caribou Herd also usually 

calves south or east of the Arctic Oil Reserve coastal strip, but frequently moves 

to that coastal strip to avoid insects. why shouldn't we expect the same type of 

adaptation and beneficial use by caribou of gravel drill pads and roads ? 

There is one additional aspect of caribou and oil fields I want to bring to 

your attention that should have direct bearing on the caribou questions 

being asked about the Arctic Oil Reserve. In 1992 the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Alaska Department of Fish &Game, the North Slope Borough. and fhe 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association formed a joint caribou steering committee to 

evaluate and synthesize the effects of oil field mitigation measures on caribou 

movement and normal behavior. The final report was issued lost fall and Its 

conclusions were approved by all participating groups. Concurrence signatures 

of the Regional Director of USFlsh and Wildlife Service , Commissioner of the 

Alaska Department of Ash and Game. and the Director of the North Slope 

Borough WlldHfe Department are inside the report's cover. I have submitted a 

copy of that report for the record. That report's basic conclusion Is that with the 

exception of cows with new born two to three week old calves, the mitigation 

measures implemented by the lndustty have been effective in allowing free 

movement of caribou throughout the field. After calves mature past about two 

to three weeks they as well move freely throughout the field. 
148 

3 

Lets look at the other sensitive animal, the tundra swan. Because swans are 

less tolerant of disturbance than other waterfowl we monitor swan nesting 

and brood rearing distribution and abundance as an indicator of overall 

waterfowl health within the oil fields. Sort of an early warning sign that 

something may not be right. This summer we are completing our 9th 

consecutive survey of this activity in the KRU. Remember KRU was being built 

in the decade of 1980s and rapidly expanding its presence and activity. In 

general, during these nine years swan numbers and numbers of nests have 

been slowly increasing or holding stable inside the KRU. This summer (1995) we 

had our highest count of nests with 108 nests located inside the oil field. That is a 

116% increase over 1994. We also observed 452 adult swans which is a 46% 

increase over 1994. The swan population and waterfowl populations continue 

to be healthy and productive inside all existing North Slope oil fields. Again, we 

should expect birds 80 miles to the east to show a simllar positive response to oil 

field activity, 

let me very quickly mention one additional bird. In 1993 the Spectacled 

Eider was listed as a threatened species. This bird does nest in the existing oil 

fields. In cooperation with the USFWS we monitor that birds abundance and 

distribution every year and have found its numbers to be stable Inside the fields. 

But of importance to an Arctic Oil Reserve issue, I point out that in listing this 

species, the US Fish and Wildlife Service sold the North Slope oil fields have not 

been a substantial contributor to the decline of this bird. In fact. the oil fields 

appear to be a local strong hold with numbers up substantially in 1995. 

In the time I have left I would like to tum to two related construction and 

operational environmental issues. Some have said In the recent months that 

there Is not enough water or gravel in the AOR to support oil development. 

Most of the rivers and streams in the AOR are Iorge braided systems that are 

of mountain origin and thus cony a lot of gravel in their bed load and have 

large unvegetated gravel bars within their floodplains. These rivers are 

uniformly spaced about every 10 miles or so east to west across the AOR. 

The USFJSh and Wildlife Service conducted a six year study of best gravel mining 

practices in Alaska and concluded and recommended that the gravel con and 

should be mined from these floodplain deposits. I've also brought a copy of 

their Guidelines Manual on Gravel Site Development In the Arctic and submit it 

for the record. With active gravel replenishment from these mountain origin 

streams, reduced development footprint size, and well spaced braided 

rivers; grovel Is available in more that sufftcient quantity to support potential 

development. 
149 

4 

Now let's tie in the water availability question. The secondary benefit of the 

physical character of the gravel deposits is they can be developed In 

accordance with these Guidelines In a manner that also provides adequate 

water to support an oil field. The USFWS Guidelines recommend that in large 

braided rivers deep holes be excavated In the inactive floodplain and allowed 

to fill with water. After mining, these pits can then be connected to the active 

channels to provide deep water fish habitat. Proper placement of these mine 

sites will also then provide sufficient year round water for oil field support. The 

Alaska Department of Ash and Game also supports these recommendations 

and stipulated these guidelines be used In mine site location, design, operation. 

and rehabilitation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 
150 

.. 
151 
.... 

c 

C1) 

en 

Q) 

'-

c. 

0 

.... 

0 

1'-

0) 

,.... 

Q) 

.... 

·-en --·-'-

c 

..... 

0 

c 

0 ·.... -

:J -

0 

. > 

w 

C1) 

.r:. 

.... 

152 
Conceptual Facility Layout - Pro

1002 Area of the Arctic 
154 

Testimoay or Juditla Brady Executive Director 

Alaska Oil and Gu Aaodation 

Andloraae, Alaska 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

Paget 

Leuiq of the Coastal Plain or the Arctic: National WildHfe Retu&e 

for OU and Gu Esploration and Produc:tJon 

Beroretbe 

United Statea Houae of RepreantatJves Committee on Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

August 3, 199~ 
155 

Alaska Oil and Gaa Assodallon 

Page2 

My name is Judith Brady, and I am the Bxec:utive Director of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

(AOOA). Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on leasing the coastal plain of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the inclusion of leasing revenues in the Budget 

Reconciliation. AOOA is a trade auocialion whose 18 member companies account for the 

majority of oil and gas exploration, production, transportation, reftning and marketing activities 

in Alaska. The oil and gas industry makes a very significant contribution to the economies of the 

State of Alaska and the nation, both directly in the form of taxes, royalties, and jobs and 

indirectly in the form of goods and services purchased by the industty. 

AOOA strongly suppons legislation allowing Congress to open the 1002 Area of ANWR to oil 

and gas competitive leasing, exploration, development and production under reasonable 

operational and environmental conditions. 

The majority of Alaskans support opening the Arctic Coastal Plain to oil and gas exploration and 

production, inc:J.udins the State of Alaska, the·Alaska Lcgislanue. the North Slope Borough and 

the Alaska Federation of Natives. 

My swemcnt today will focus on three topics; current North Slope operations, minimization of 

environmental impacts; and economic benefits of development of the 1002 Al:ca, both to the 

State of Alaska and the nation. But first, it is important to restate that the 1002 Area was 

specifically set aside by Congrcu apart from the Wildc:rnciS area in ANWR not because of any 

unique biological or aesthetic qualities, but because of its ouiStanding petroleum potential. This 

tremendous miOl1l'Ce can be developed without compromising the environmental valuea of the 

area. Oil development and wildlife can and do coexist in harmony on Alaska's North Slop~~ 

today. AOOA urges the Committee to review the Jeologic potential of the 1002 Area, the 

environmental record on the North Slope, economic bcnefiiS from development, and encqy 

necdl for today and tomonow. 
156 

Re!IPonsib!e Ngnb Slqpc Qperations 

Alaska Oil 8lld Gas Association 

Page3 

After more than four decades of exploration and development on Alaska's North Slope, the 

indusu:y continues effons to simplify fKilities. stmtmline operations and pursue advances in 

technology. A philosophy of continuous improvement and commitment to environmental 

excellence has allowed the Alaskan oilllld gas indusu:y to build a record of successes on which 

to base future developments. The lessons learned a1 Pmdboe Bay will allow the 1002 Atea to be 

developed and produced responsibly and cost-effectively with technical inteJrity and minimal 

environmental impact. The industry has learned that.environrnental sense and business cents are 

inextricably linked. Technical advances in arctic drilling, construction, and operating practices m 

the past 40 years have dramatically redllced induStry's "footprint" on the tundra, minimized 

wastes produced, and continued to ensure use of the land by both resident and mipatory wildlife. 

In the 1970's, a production pad covered 40 acres and wells were spaced as much as 100 feet 

apart. Drilling wastes were disposed of in reserve pits, in compliance with environmental 

regulations in place at the time. Wells were drilled and pipelines were built using gravel pads. 

Bottom hole locations for wells often extended 1.5 miles or more from a surface location. 

Today on the North Slope and potentially in the 1002 Atea, exploratory wens are drilled and 

pipelines are built from ice pads and roads that melt in the spring leaving little trace. Wells are 

clustered and spaced as close as 10 feet apart on 10 ICre production pads, a 70 percent millction 

since the 1970's. New and innovative waste manaaemcnt techniques have e1irninated surface 

disposal or "reserve pits" for drillinJ wastes. Extended reach drilling now enables recovery of oil 

reserves as far u three miles away from a sinilc surface location. Under a fuU development 

scenario, the pads. roads and pipelines associated with oil production would directly affect S.OOO 

to 7,000 acres of the Arctic Coastal Plain. 
157 

Minimal Enyjrgnroental Impact 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

Page4 

The vast majority of the 19 million acre Arctic Refuge will remain untouched if the 1002 Area is 

opened for competitive leasing. Less than one percent of the l.S million acre 1002 Area would 

be affected. The area directly affected by oil and gas development in ANWR would be 

equivalent in size to that of Dulles International Airport in Washington, D.C., in an area 

approximately the size of South Carolina. 

North Slope operators have gone beyond regulatory standards with innovative practices and new 

technology to ensure protection of the Arctic environment The industry looks at the long-tenn 

environmental impacts of its daily activities and searehcs for ways to further J:educe waste, 

prevent" spills, and protect wildlife and habitat. 

Studies conducted on the North Slope by industry, government agencies, and independent poups 

have shown that environmental impacts from development have been minimal. Long-tenn 

environmental studies ta1Jet every facet of operations from exploration through lease closure. 

Wildlife and habitat studies help identify sensitive _, and seasons so that disturbances can be 

avoided or minimized • the primary means of protecting wildlife and habitat W"J.ldlife use of 

_, near fa.cilities and transportation corridors is carefully monitored. Rehabilitation projects 

are designed to enhance lhe value of sites no Ion~ in use and provide wildlife habitat. 

Wildlife populations continue to flourish within the North Slope oil ftelds. 'IlleR: has been no 

discernible effect on regional distribution, migration patterns, calving success, herd size, 

productivity, or other biologically irnponant characteristics. Caribou from the Central Arttic 

Herd (CAH) and Potcupine Caribou Herd (PCH) move freely through the oil fJClds. In fact. the 

population of the Central Arctic Herd has increased from 3,000 animals in 19'72 to more than 

23,500 today. 
158 

Alaslla Oil and Gas Association 

PageS 

Similar conclusions have been reached regarding wateJfowl and shorebirds. Studies show that 

the same number of species and the same number of binls within the developed area of Prudhoe 

Bay as in similar undeveloped areas. The grizzly bear and polar bear populations are healthy and 

increasing. After 40 years of activity, there are no scienlific studies (including those conducted 

by the regulatory agencies and academic institutions) that have ever documented a population 

decline of any species in response to arctic oil field operations. 

Ec000mjc Benefits to the Nation and to Alaska 

Oil production from Alaska's North Slope currently averages about 1.6 million bands per day, 

accounting for nearly 25 percent of all domestic production. Oil development un Alaska's North 

Slope has provided hundreds of billions of dollars to the Alaska and U.S. economies- $1.3 

billion in fiscal year 1994 alone. By comparison, the state's second-largest revenue generator, 

coiJII1'll':fCial flShing, brought in $44.8 million in 1994, J.esa than 3 pen:ent of the State's income. 

Development of the 1002 Area will provide much-needed jobs for Alaskans and all Americans 

alike. The oil and JU industly provides thousands of din:c:t and indim:t jobs in Alaska. 

Accordinc to the University of Alaska, Institute of $ocialli1d Economic Research, oil revenues 

account fot one in every three jobs in the State. AcconlinJ to the Alaska Department of Labor, 

oil producers may experience a decrease of 20 perceut «more in 1995 over 1994. In Alaska, 

employment in the last year has decreased more than 18 percent, and the combined downturn in 

support iDdDslry jobs will avcrqe 10 pm:em. Since 1982, ovu 450,000 jobs- more than half of 

all the jobs available in the U.S. petroleum industly -- have been lost. Government estimates 

show that at least 250,000 jobl would be created u a result of 1002 Area devel.op;nent. Private 

sector SIIJdies put the IDCal u blah u 735.000 jobs in all u.s. secton. 
159 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

Page6 

Economic benefits to the United States could be significant. The U.S. Department of Interior has 

stated that net national economic benefits from ANWR development could reach a staggering 

$325 billion. In May 1995, the U.S. imported $11.4 billion worth of oil and in the next five 

years, the U.S. could be importing more than 60 pen:ent of its daily petroleum consumption. At 

one million bam:ls per day, new production from the 1002 Area could increase the U.S. GNP by 

more than $50 billion by the year 200S. The nation could save $14 billion per year in imports 

and reduce the trade deficit. 

Of the $1.89 billion in unrestricted revenue that the State of Alaska expects to collect this year, 

$1..58 billion - or 84 percent • will be from oil and gas. Just about $5 of every $6 of available 

state revenue coines from oil and gas, not including royalties deposited in the Permanent Fund. 

Alaska revenue forecasts show that petroleum revenues will continue to dominate state revenues 

for the next five fiscal years. However, despite continuing efforts by industry to increa.Se 

production through enhanced recovery and addition of smaller f~elds adjacent to the producing 

fields, North Slope production has been declining since 1988. 

The geologic potential and economic benefits of the 1002 Area. by anyone's estimate, arc 

significant. The ANWR Coastal Plain represents the nation's best onshore prospect for major 

new oil discoveries. In its April 1991 repon entitled Overview of the 1991 Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge Recoverable Petroleum Resource Update, the U.S. Dcpanment of the Interior 

revised its estimate of the likelihood that the coastal plain of ANWR contains at least one 

economically viable oil field to 46 pen:ent, a considerable increase from its 1987 estimate of 19 

percent. The DepartJnent of Interior reported that there is a 9S p~ probability that ANWR 

contains at least 61S million barre~ of oil and aS percent probai,lillty th.t it contains at least 8.8 

billion barrels. The General Accounting Office reviewed and conelllfed with the Interior Dept. 

estimate in 1993. By comparison, the supergiant Prudhoe Bay oil field is expected to yield 13 

billion barrels. 
160 

Alaska 011 and Gas Association. 

Page7 

Opponents argue that the yield will be only a 200 day supply of oil 'This ass~~~ne~ that the 1002 

Area will be the country's only source of oil. It is more realistic to examine potential production 

as one million bam:Is per day for the next twenty years, contributing 12 percent of cUl'J:ent 

domestic production, enough to provide all the gasoline used by 14 percent of Americ:a's 

automobiles. Using the American Petroleum Institute (API) estimate of reserves at IS billion 

barrels, production from the 1002 Area could last for 2S years. peald.ng at about 2 million barrels 

per day and meeting nearly 33 percent of the current U.S. daily production. 

Potential production from the 1002 Area is critical given.thc dccreasc in domestic production in 

1994 to 6.6 million bariels per day, the lowest annual level since 1954. Domestic crude outpilt 

has fallen 1.S million barrels per day since 1980 levels, while domestic consumption has 

increased 3.4 percent. U.S. demand is continuing to increase rapidly and is now at 17.7 million 

barrels per day. Even with increased conservation, oil will still provide 38 percent of the U.S. 

energy demand by the year 2030. 

Facilities built to transport peuoleum resources from the 1002 Area could provide the 

infrastructure to allow dcve!DPment of neuby marginal fields on state and federal Ianda. 

Development of the 1002 Area could also help ensure the long term operation of the Trans 

Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). 

A Lgok Into tbO futme . 

Alth~ m many views of what ANWJt deVelopment will be, no one can predict the 

petroleum potential or the natme of development until the area is leased 111d explored. 

Development in the 1002 Area will depend on the subiUl'face geology and the surface 

environment. The dimension• of the field and the characteristics of the reserves will dictate 
161 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

Page a 

One certainty about future development in the 1002 Area is that it will provide another 

opportunity to expand existing technology and eXPlore new and innovative ways to develop 

resources to meet today's growing energy needs without compromising the environment for 

future generations. 

What is known is that environmental impacts would be avoided and minimized to the maximum 

extent practicable. Low-impact vehicles will be used for tundra travel. Exploration would be 

completed from ice pads and ice roads that melt leaving little trace in the spring. Production and 

transportation facilities will be consolidated. Wells will be clustered on small pads and drilled 

directionally. Service areas for contractors will be reduced 95 percent Pipelines will be elevated 

and separated from roads, if there are roads. Used drilling fluids would be injected into 

subsurface formations eliminating the need for surface disposal in reserve pits. Facilities will be 

designed halon-free. Comprehensive spill prevention measures, extensive recycling programs, 

and environmental audits will be in place. Air and water quality will be preserved. 

Facilities will be designed and constructed to reduce direct habitat impact and accommodate 

important wildlife habitat and migration routes. The wilderness quality of the Refuge will not be 

reduced. Caribou will still follow migration routes and calve on the coastal plain. Wolverines, 

pizzly bears, wOlves, moose, Oall sheep, and peregrine falcons will still use the Wilderness a:ma. 

Musk oxen and wolves will continue to thrive. Polar bear dens will remain fully protected under 

the many local, State, national and international treaties and agreements on marine mammals. 

Millions of migratory birds will nest and feed without adverse impact, includin& snow aeese. 

Brant, tundra swans, and eiders. 
162 

Conc!usjon 

Alaska Oil and Gas Association 

Page9 

The key to this issue is balance. AOOA urges the members of the Committee to weigh the 

temporary aesthetic impacts and the economic benefits to each a careful balance. 

If the resources of the 1002 AR:a are not developed in a timely manner, the State, the U.S. and 

the native landholders will suffer. 

The decision to aUow multiple usc in the 1002 AR:a is not a mutually exclusive decision for 

energy or environment. Arctic oil and gas operations in Alaska ae the most environmentally 

safe in the world. Nowhere else bas so much oil been produced with such minimal 

environmental impact. 

The Alaska Oil and Gas Association strongly supports the opening of the ANWR Coastal Plain 

to oil and gas competitive leasing, exploration, development, production and transportation under 

reasonable operational and environmental conditions. Such development would enhance 

national energy security, provide income to both the federal and state governments and would 

generate jobs and business opponunities for Alaskans as well as for residents in all 50 states. 
C) 

c 

·---

·-... 

c -ca 

c 

0 

·-t; 

! 

·-c 

163 
164 

Tes«mngy 

House Resources Committee 

Ro_aer C. Herrera 

Consultant to Arctk Power 

1 Aqust 1995 

Mr. Chairman, 

Arctic Power is a not-for-profit, grass-roots, citizens organization, with 

headquarters in Anchorage, Alaska, which has the sole objective of 

opening the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 

to responsible oil and gas leasing. Arctic Power has approximately 

12,000 individual members in Alaska and the Lower-48 states. and is nonpartisan. I am a consultant to Arctic Power and have prepared this 

testimony from a background of over 25 years living in Alaska including 

many years spent on the North Slope and in ANWR 

I appreciate the invitation to testify before you today and wish to 

concentrate my remarks on a somewhat quizzical look at positions taken 

by many who are opposed to the opening of the coastal plain to leasing. 

This is done not with any malice, but to point out some of the 

inconsistencies of their deeply held positions. One has to hope that there 

is some way for both sides to win on this issue. Such an outcome has 

prevailed in the past, so it should be achievable in the future. 

Beneftts of Alaskan oU 

When OPEC initiated its first oil embargo in 1m. the resulting shock to 

our economy and our national security was perceived to be extreme and 

over the succeeding years, including the second oil supply manipulation in 

1979, OPEC countries milked the United States of an extra $4 trillion, 

which a constant oil price and a normal market would have denied them. 

The problem to the U.S. would have been even more critical but for the 

fact that the massive Prudhoe Bay Oil Field had been discovered on the 

Page 1 
165 

North Slope in 1969. In 1 Cfl3 its development was being held up by 

environmental groups who were opposed to the construction of the Trans 

Alaska Pipeline. Their reasons were all too familiar to those of us 

involved in the ANWR issue- the certain devastation of caribou herds and 

of Alaska's land environment 

With the onset of the Arab-Israeli War in 1 Cfl3 it took Congress a matter 

of months to recognize where the real danger lay and the Trans Alaska 

Pipeline Authorization Act was passed. History has shown that Congress 

was right- caribou have flourished and the pipeline has performed with 

outstanding efficiency. Equally importantly. the knowledge that 1.5 

million barrels of Prudhoe oil would soon begin flowing to domestic 

markets greatly ameliorated the political pressures imposed by the 

embargo. 

A few years later, in 1 Cfl9, when Iran triggered the second doubling in 

the price of oil, the reality of Prudhoe Bay oil saved the American 

economy from crippling impacts. To have been denied 25% of our 

domestic oil supply because of an incorrect concern for caribou would 

have been catastrophic at that time. Yet some people are bent on 

repeating that mistake in the future. As Winston Churchill pointed out, 

"Learn all you can about the history of the past, for how else can one ever 

make a guess what is going to happen in the future?'' 

T)ae P)IQoso.pJay of OppositioJl. to Oge•in& ANWR 

We can now confidently predict that our future dependence on imported 

foreign oil is unlikely to be less than the present 50% irrespective of our 

zeal for conservation and alternative energy. We can predict that OPEC 

will soon regain a monopoly share of the world's oil markets, with all that 

that implies, and we can suggest that the concerns about the Porcupine 

caribou are as overstated as similar concerns for other caribou in the past. 

Furthermore we can expect Alaska's contribution to our domestic oil 

production to remain about 25% or more becauSe the decline in the rate 

of North Slope output will be less steep than that of oil from the Lower48 states. 

But must we wait, as in the past, for a third oil crisis before taking 

legislative action to protect ourselves with ANWR coastal plain oil, or can 

we learn from history? Just how much research and practical experience 

is necessary to conclude that caribou habituate easily to benign facilities. 

such as well pads or pipelines, or that they can calve in an oil field as they 

do routinely at Kuparuk? Surely there comes a time when the last iota of 

Page2 
166 

risk can be accepted. We do it in every other aspect of our lives- why 

not with caribou and oil? It is ironic that a great many people are killed 

every year in their automobiles - a risk which we accept - yet the lesser 

risk to one Porcupine caribou interacting negatively with a coastal plain 

oil field. is sufficient in some peoples' minds to deny access to the oil 

which fuels the vehicle that kills them! Perhaps all that makes sense. but 

only if we are willing to walk. not drive. 

In the same fashion. the Gwich'in Indians in Arctic Village, who are so 

fearful of oil development on the coastal plain, are quite comfortable with 

oil development on their own lands where they wish to perpetuate their 

traditional life style. It is interesting how we selectively embrace change. 

The Gwich'in want to preserve the past, but with four wheelers for 

hunting and diesel fueled home heating stoves. No reasonable person can 

deny them these modern conveniences, but as users of petroleum products 

their attitude towards the production of oil should be a little more 

reasoned than it appears to be. 

The Gwich'in embraced the concept of producing oil on their own lands, 

but do not believe that it can be done safely on other lands to the north. 

No doubt they argue, as do our Canadian neighbors, that drilling on 

Gwich'in lands or within the range of the Porcupine Caribou Herd in 

Canada, is different than drilling on the coastal plain which sometimes 

includes part of the birthing areas of the caribou herd. The Canadian 

Government didn't worry about that when it was hell bent to find oil its 

side of the border. It happily allowed wells to be drilled in important, 

traditional calving areas. Fortunately for the Canadians and the Gwich'in 

no oil was found on their lands therefore they didn't have to face the 

consequences - good, bad or non-existent - of the long term production of 

oil from their areas. · 

Offshore, in the Beaufort Sea, which some people would argue is a much 

more hazardous and difficult environment, the Canadians show no 

hesitation in doing everything they can to establish oil production. One 

has to conclude that Canada's self-righteous objection to coastal plain 

development is cynical and hypocritical. They will hugely benefit if they 

develop their arctic crude and prevent the United States from doing the 

same. It would be ironic, if, in the future, Washington, Oregon and 

California imported some of their energy needs from arctic Canada rather 

than from arctic Alaska. 

The criticism leveled at Canada can also be aimed at the Gwich'in Steering 

Committee - which seems to be composed of white environmentalists- if 

• Page3 
167 

only because they have consistently refused every invitation to isjt the 

North Slope and examine the oil field facilities for themselves. The 

Gwich'in have refused to meet with the lnupiat Eskimos who have had 20 

years experience of oil development and have learnt what its true impact 

is on their traditional culture. Is this refusal predicated by the expectation 

that the Inupiats' viewpoint might be convincing? Does the old adage 

apply that, "There are none so blind as those who don't want to see''? 

Other EnvironmeJital Questions 

Why can the National Audubon Society safely produce oil for 25 years 

from the Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary in southern Louisiana where thousands 

of Lesser Snow Geese over-winter. while an experienced oil company 

cannot develop oil on the coastal plain where those same snow geese graze 

and fatten themselves every fall for their flight to Louisiana? The 

Audubon Society has already habituated them to responsible development 

so what is the problem? 

Why can eight National Wildlife Refuges around the nation (including one 

in southern Alaska) have successful oil operations within their borders, 

but not a ninth one in northeastern Alaska? Why can the Department of 

the Interior, with major input from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, 

spend seven years studying all aspects of the coastal plain, conclude it 

should be open for leasing. and suddenly determine that the 77 scientists 

and experts who reached that conclusion, were badly wrong and the area 

should become Wilderness? So much for science- long live politics! 

How can the environmentalists, who oppose the opening of the coastal 

plain, live with themselves when they know that the 8 million barrels of 

oil a day we import from foreign countries is produced with often casual 

regard or even disregard for the environment, and always less 

environmental protection than would be accorded a barrel of Alaskan oil? 

This argument is irrefutable to anyone who has seen many foreign oil 

fields, yet this unnecessary incremental damage to planet earth is 

apparently of no consequence to anti-ANWR environmentalists. 

Indeed it is fair to say that a barrel of North Slope oil has less impact on 

the environment than any other domestic oil. This is a function not only 

of the extreme care accorded to the arctic tundra, etc. by the oil 

producers, but also the fact that an average Alaskan oil well can be 

expected to produce 2000-3000 barrels of oil per day versus its Lower-48 

counterpart which averages 13 barrels of oil a day. Simple mathematics 

shows that 150-200 wells are required in the continental US to equal the 

Page4 
168 

energy outpu~ of one Alaska well. Which is environmentally preferable. 

one well or two hundred? 

If we were logical and really wanted to protect the environment, we 

would preferentially produce Alaskan oil over all other sources. 

Environmentalists are concerned that so few people visit the coastal plain 

(about 200 each summer) that it diminishes the value of their argument 

that the area should be set aside for such visitors. They say that when 

Yellowstone was made the first National Park nobody visited it either, but 

now it is enjoyed by millions. However the question must be asked, how 

do people get to Yellowstone or ANWR? Do they walk or do they use 

transportation which inevitably bums up petroleum products? Can one 

truly disconnect thinking about visiting a national park and not consider 

how one gets there? 

We all have become blase about such problems. but a gallon of gasoline is 

cheap, so who cares? Apparently not the environmentalists. 

It is pertinent to consider that probably 99% of the people who have 

visited Alaska's arctic (the vast majority of whom have thoroughly 

enjoyed the experience) have done so because of the presence of the 

Prudhoe Bay oil fields, not their absence. If the environmentalists truly 

want more people to experience the special qualities of the coastal plain of 

ANWR. they should encourage an oil field to be developed there. One 

suspects however, they don't want lots of people to visit ANWR, but 

prefer to keep it for their own kind who have plenty of money. 

What is sad about these arguments is that surely we are all 

environmentalists now. Short of some goonish villain in a Batman movie. 

does anyone seriously want to despoil the globe? Or more specifically. is 

there an Alaskan who is not fully aware of his or her responsibilities 

towards our environment? I have not met such people. 

The Ouestlou of Resenes 

It does not really matter what the Department of the Interior calculates 

for oil reserves lying, waiting to be discovered, beneath the coastal plain. 

Actually, both the U.S.Geological Survey and the Bureau of Land 

Management, have estimated quite high figures for volumes of 

produceable oil. So has the National Wildlife Federation and the 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists. But until exploration 

wells are drilled nobody will know. In fact, everybody will be wrong. 

PageS 
169 

What is certain is that oil companies are very carefully making their own 

calculations and those are the only ones that matter. It is the oil 

companies who will be bidding with hard cash on leases in a coastal plain 

lease sale, not the federal government. The government will receive its 

money up front and laugh all the way to the bank (to the great benefit of 

our budget imbalance). It is the oil companies' money which will be at 

risk during the exploration drilling phase when expensive winter wells 

will try to discover the oil they think is there. The caribou, who will 

have migrated away, and the tundra, which is frozen solid, will not be at 

risk. · 

If the wells are successful and large quantities of oil are found we will all 

benefit with new jobs and a better economy. Then we will know how 

much oil we have and can plan accordingly. The figures we are using 

now are honest best guesses or cynical political distortions. Neither are of 

real use, but both serve some purpose. 

Other Thou&hts 

Occasionally we all have dark thoughts about energy. One hears 

grumbles at hydro projects, nuclear electricity and the dirt potential of 

coal, to say nothing of oil. Even solar and wind and ethanol generate 

strong opposition. We all are great at consuming the stuff and some of us 

are getting good at conserving it, but neither of those activities creates a 

single Btu of energy. The State of Alaska has the largest coal reserves 

and the largest oil reserves of any state in the nation. We are a producer 

of energy. (We have lots of hydro and wind power too). Our singular 

responsibility is to worry about how we produce that energy for the 

greatest good and the least harm, not just for ourselves, who consume 

little, but for the nation as a whole. 

We think we are doing a good job in this regard and over three-quarters 

of Alaskans are totally supportive of careful development of the coastal 

plain. Arctic Power represents a sampling of that 75% which includes 

members of the Gwich'in tribe. We obviously perceive this to be an 

Alaskan issue. but we fully understand that the right decision on the 

coastal plain is critical to the whole of America. We hope this committee 

will make the right decision and allow environmentally good oil to be 

produced from beneath the coastal plain without detriment to caribou or 

people. 

Page6 
170 

SfATEMENT OF DAVID R. CLINE 

ALASKA REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT 

NATIONAL AUDUBON SOCIETY 

at the 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

REGARDING LEASING THE COAsrAL PLAIN OF THE ARCriC 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE FOR OIL AND GAS DEVELOPMENT 

BEFORE THE HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITI"EE 

HONORABLE DON YOUNG, CHAIRMAN 

AUGUSf 3, 1995 
171 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Dave Cline. I'm 

regional vice president for the National Audubon Society in Alaska. Alaska 

is my home and I have resided there. for 24 years. I very much appreciate you 

providing us this opportunity to testify on your proposal to lease the coastal 

plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and gas exploration and 

production and the inclusion of the leasing revenues in the budget 

reconciliation. 

The mission of the National Audubon Society is to conserve and restore 

natural ecosystems focusing on birds and other wildlife for the benefit of 

humanity and the earth's biological diversity. We currently have about 

600,000 members nationwide including 2,600 in Alaska. 

Audubon has a long history of involvement in and familiarity with the 

Arctic Refuge. We supported its establishment in 1960 by President Dwight D. 

Eisenhower "to preserve unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreation values". 

Through the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 

(ANILCA) we worked with the Congress and thousands of Americans to get 

the refuge more than doubled in size and a portion included in wilderness. 

Then from 1988 to 1992 we participated in an exhaustive reevaluation of 

whether or not the Arctic Refuge should be opened to oil and gas 

development. As you know, after thorough examination of facts on both 

sides of the issue, the American people sent the Congress a resounding No! 

Don't develop the Arctic Refuge! 

Since ending our debate here in 1992, ongoing wildlife studies have simply 

confumed.earlier findings that the coastal plain constitutes the biological 

heart of the refuge. For example, in talking with state biologists and the 

refuge manager just last week, they reported that 92 percent of calving by the 

Porcupine caribou herd this last spring was concentrated in the so-called 1002 

area, that section of the coastal plain proposed for leasing. 

And last fall, more than 300,000 snow geese that we share with Canada, 

stopped to feed on the coastal plain before proceeding on their long migration 

to wintering grounds in the south where they are enjoyed by millions of 

Page 1 
172 

Americans. Biologists have found the geese extremely sensitive to human 

disturbance during this critical part of their life cycle. 

No reputable Wildlife biologist that I know feels that placing an industrial oil 

complex in the heart of the refuge's coastal plain habitats will not seriously 

disrupt such spectacles of nature so important to so many people. 

In fact, recent findings of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game and 

National Biological Service conclude that avoidance of, and fewer 

movements within, the Prudhoe Bay oil field complex by female caribou of 

the Central Arctic herd are ostensibly in response to the dense network of 

production and support facilities, roads, and above ground pipelines, and the 

associated vehicular and human activity. Impaired access to this area 

constitutes a functional loss of habitat. Moreover, in their 14 years of radio 

tracking caribou in this herd, not a single radio-collared caribou is known to 

have passed entirely through the main oil field in either direction.l 

In a 1994 report, Dr. Ray Cameron of the Alaska Department of Flsh and 

Game reported a decline in the growth rate of the Central Arctic caribou herd. 

Construction of the Milne Point road system displaced maternal females and 

their calves. The high frequency of reproductive pauses among female 

caribou exposed to disturbance this way may be attributed to their relative 

inability to compensate for the metabolic costs of milk production, Cameron 

conduded.2 

State and federal wildlife agencies have also confirmed the vital importance 

of the traditional calving ground on of the Arctic Refuge coastal plain to the 

viability of the Porcupine caribou herd. Use of this area favors calf survival, 

principally through lower predation risk and improved foraging conditions. 

State and federal wildlife biologists are in agreement that if petroleum 

1 Cameron, R.D. et al. 1995. Abundance and movements of caribou in the oilfield complex near Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Rangifer, 15(1) pp 3-7. 

2 Cameron, R.D. 1994. Distribution and productivity of the Central Arctic can'bou herd in 

relation to petroleum development: case history studies with a natemal perspective. Federal 

Aid in Wildlife Restoration Research Final Report, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, 

Juneau, Alaska. 18 pp. 

Page 2 
173 

development displat:es calving from the coastal plain, calf mortality likely 

will increase.3 

I have enjoyed the good fortune over the past 24 years of becoming intimately 

familiar with the Arctic Refuge. As a wildlife biologist working for the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service in the early 1970's, I participated in a team study of 

the refuge as required by the Wilderness Act. Our assignment was to 

determine its suitability for inclusion in the National Wilderness 

Preservation System. It was one of most enjoyable and easiest assignments of 

my career. We determined that the entire refuge - including its coastal plain -

qualified as wilderness, and recommended that it be designated such by 

Gmgress. 

Over the ensuing years I have come to appreciate the Arctic Refuge together 

with the adjoining lvuauik National Park in Canada as representing 

superlative wilderness sanctuary for wildlife anywhere in the circumpolar 

Arctic. They lie in one of the most remote and primitive wild regions left on 

earth. 

Having camped, hunted and fished in the Arctic Refuge, and walked across its 

coastal plain from the Sadlerochit Mountains to the Beaufort Sea, I know 

from personal experience that it provides unexcelled opportunities for 

solitude, and primitive and unconfined outdoor adventure. Its wildlife is 

readily observable because of the open landscapes and limited human 

presence. The refuge constitutes the only wildlife refuge in North America 

that protects a complete spectrum of Arctic landscape features and wildlife 

populations in near pristine condition. And, as the Department of Interior 

concluded in it resource assessment of 1987, the ooastal plain is the most 

biologically productive part of the entire refuge, and center of wildlife activity 

in the unit. 

A diversity of wildlife in an incomparable wild setting is what makes the 

Arctic Refuge a special place to conservation-minded Americans. 

We must realize that it was established by law to: 

3 Whilten. K.R., et al. 1992 Productivity and early calf survival in the Porcupine caribou herd. 

J. Wildlife Mgt. 56(2):pp 201-212. 

Page 3 
174 

1. Conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural 

diversity; 

2. Fulfill international treaty obligations of the U.S. with respect to fish, 

wildlife and their habitats; 

3. Provide opportunities for continued subsistence uses by local residents; 

4. Ensure water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge. 

Nothing is said about oil in these purposes! Oil field development is 

incompatible. with such conservation purposes. 

As a member of Alaska Governor Tony Knowles' Oil and Gas Policy Council, 

I've been provided the opportunity to sit at the table with highly 

knowledgeable and articulate leaders of the oil industry in Alaska - ARCO, BP 

Exploration and EXXON. They represent companies whose business is 

finding and selling oil for maximum profits to their stockholders. And they 

are very, very good at it. 

Much of the council's debate is focused on finding incentives for 

development of smaller and more marginal oil fields on Alaska's North 

Slope by making Alaska's tax and royalty regime more globally competitive. 

And just what do these North Slope oil reserves consist of? According to a 

July 2, 1995 Fairbanks Daily News Miner article entitled, "No Shortage at 

Prudhoe Bay", "information provided to the state's Oil and Gas Conservation 

Commission by the Alaska oil industry reveals "Prudhoe Bay, the nation's oil 

field remains the mainstay of Alaska's Oil Patch and is now expected to 

provide nearly 200,000 barrels a day as far into the future as the year 2030. 

Other overlapping fields, containing known oil reserves at different depths, 

enhance the North Slope's long-term value".4 

4 ODonoghue, B. 1995. No Shortage at Prudhoe: Oil reserves will keep going and going. debate 

reveals. Fairbanks Daily News Miner. July 2, 1995. 

Page 4 
175 

Richard Fmeberg, an independent oil policy consultant from Fairbanks 

characterizes the situation this way: ''The ten year trend (in North Slope oil 

fields) is like the Energizer Bunny. It just keeps going and going and going." 

Mr. Mike R. Bowlin, President and CEO of ARCO, confirmed the importance 

of North Slope oil reserves to his company's future in a speech delivered in 

Anchorage on June 25, 1995: "This state [Alaska] figures prominently in all 

our plans for the future. We have hu~ reserves yet to be produced on the 

North SlQpe" (emphasis added). 'We expect to invest $1 billion in Alaska 

over the next five years. Most of that - $850 million - is allocated to existing 

fields. The rest is earmarked for exploration and delineation ... We're going to 

concentrate on high quality projects in areas where infrastructure is readily 

available, or can be made available at reasonable cost. Areas near existing 

fields will get a lot of attention.", Mr. Bowlin concluded.s 

And in a report presented by OXY USA, Inc. to the state's Oil and Gas Policy 

Council on June 19, 1995, entitled, "Unlocking the Heavy Oil Potential on 

Alaska's North Slope", company executives stressed the importance of royalty 

relief as an incentive to develop some 26 billion barrels of oil sands in-place 

in oil fields such as West Sak, Kuparek and Milne Point. YES, 26 BILUON 

BARRELS! That's more than the most widely optimistic estimates of light oil 

reserves at Prudhoe Bay and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge combined!6 

Although I don't want to underplay the technological difficulties and 

economic constraints in extracting this heavy oil, we do know that it is there, 

that the technology is proven to extract it, and that it is owned by the people 

of Alaska. Ten percent of the production at Milne Point is already coming 

from shallow oil sands. 

Not to be overlooked in this discussion is the fact that the North Slope gas 

owners (principally ARCO, BP and EXXON) are sitting on at least 37 trillion 

cubic feet of proven natural gas reserves (Department of Energy figures). 

5 Bowlin, M.R. 1995. ARCO and Alaska: partners for the future. Speech presented in 

Anchorage, Alaslca on June 25, 1995. 

6 Unlocking the heavy oil potential on Alaslca's North Slope. Presentation by OXY USA Inc. 

before the Alaslca Oil and Gas Policy Coundl on June 29, 1995. 

Page 5 
176 

Yukon Pacific Corporation is positioned to deliver this natural gas to Asian 

markets in liquid form. Building the Trans Alaska Gas System (TAGS) will 

cost $14 billion, aeate 10,000 construction jobs in Alaska and 600 permanent 

workers, and contribute a minimum of $400 :million annually to the state 

treasury for decades. 

Meanwhile, the 1995 National Assessment of US Oil and Gas Resources 

concludes that "assuming existing teclmology, there are approximately 110 

billion barrels of technically recoverable oil onshore and in US waters. 'This 

includes measured (proved) reserves, future additions to reserves in existing 

fields, and undiscovered resources."7 

So why are we proposing to invite both US and foreign owned oil companies 

into a flagship wildlife refuge and wilderness area when they haven't even 

developed what they've got? It simply doesn't make sense! 

It's not like Alaska and the nation are in some sort of energy emergency that 

requires the sacrifice of our nation's natural treasures. And it's not like 

Alaska's economy is doomed if we don't exploit the refuge. After all, every 

Alaska citizen receives an annual dividend check of almost $1,000 from 

earnings on our $15 billion Permanent Fund. And unlike other states, we pay 

no state income or sales tax to fund essential government services like 

schools, police, roads, harbors and wildlife conservation. 

So I ask you, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, What is really 

going on here? It just doesn't add up. The worse case scenario that I can see 

coming out of this proposal is the sacrifice of a national treasure, the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, to sell off our national energy assets at rock bottom 

prices to foreign consumers. It's the height of folly to suggest that this is in 

the long term national security and economic interest of the United States. 

Exploitation of the Arctic Refuge was slipped into the budget reconciliation 

while denying Americans the opportunity to fully debate and understand the 

consequences of the proposed action. Legislation is necessary to do that. 

7 US Geological Survey, National Oil and Gas Resource Assessment Team. 1995. National 

assessment of United States oil and gas resources. Circular 1118. 

Page 6 
177 

Where is the legislation to open the refuge and what does it say? The 

American people deserve to know. 

An editorial in The Oregonian of June 26, 1995 summed the issue up best: 

"Rushing into oil development along Alaska's north slope in 

the wildlife refuge is not in the U.S. national interest. .. " 

" ... opening the wildlife refuge in the absence of urgent need is 

premature and wasteful and feeds a national addiction." 

"For a country without a resolute energy policy, tapping the 

wildlife refuge's oil reserves is the moral equivalent of handing 

a bottle of booze to an alcoholic. It is an invitation to go on 

another binge. It cancels the visit to the treatment center." 

"Let's take the cure, not find excuses to dodge it.'IS 

The battle to save the last four percent of the great American wilderness has 

now reached the shores of the Arctic Ocean. It can go no further. It's not the 

mark of a great nation, particularly at this point in history, to choose 

exploitation of one of its finest wildlife refuges and wilderness areas to 

continue the wasteful practices that even our fiercest economic competitors 

are abandoning. 

Such short-sighted, piecemeal decisions only set the stage for an energy crisis 

of our own making, thus simply postponing the day when the United States 

must change course in its production and use of energy. Such change will 

prove essential not only to meet the needs of its citizens but to stay 

competitive in world markets and help save the planet. Europe and Japan, 

although lacking an abundance of cheap domestic oil like the U.S., have 

already developed economies that function well in a high energy cost 

environment. They have done this by reducing waste, insisting on greater 

8 The Oregonian. No drUling in Artie Refuge. Editorial of June 26, 1995. 

Page 7 · 
178 

energy efficiency anti turning to alternative energy sources, primarily 

renewables. 

Given the disastrous state of this country's energy policy, our overdependence on oil and deplorable waste of oil, there is simply no justification 

for opening the Arctic Refuge to exploitation. The United States should 

instead develop a sustainable energy economy for the future, one that is 

efficient, clean, economical, renewable and home grown. This would save 

consumers hundreds of billions of dollars, while creating new jobs, 

strengthening our national security and protecting our environment. 

Furthermore, it would make exploiting sensitive ecosystems like the Arctic 

Refuge totally unnecessary and insure that such special wild places will 

continue to be there for the use and enjoyment of our children. 

I know from having served on the US delegations to the eight nation 

Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy and its international 

working group on the Conservation of Flora and Fauna, that our Arctic 

neighbors are looking to the US for leadership in the conservation of 

Arctic biodiversity, pollution abatement and clean up, and an expanded 

system of protected areas. This development proposal for the Arctic 

Refuge leads us in the wrong direction. The world's community of 

nations is looking to the United States, the wealthiest and strongest 

nation on earth, to provide leadership in safeguarding the future of 

our planet. · How we resolve the dispute over the future of the Arctic 

Refuge in Alaska will say a lot about whether we can rise to the 

challenge or not. It will also say a lot about our sense of values. 

So I see a golden opportunity for you to referee a win-win situation on 

this contentious issue Mr. Chairman, in the best Alaskan tradition of 

compromise. I challenge you to start by withdrawing leasing of the 

Arctic Refuge from the budget reconciliation. Instead, do what you can 

to help this great nation reduce its waste of oil, while allowing Alaska 

to get the best prices from its bountiful, proven reserves over the 

longest period of time. Simultaneously, allow the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge to continue providing natural beauty and living 

Page 8 
179 

bounty to the Gwitch'in Indians, and the values cherished by millions 

of other Americans as important to the qualities of their lives. 

Page 9 
180 

NewsfromAudubon SA 1/U.\'.·\1 . .-\1111 H< J\' .\0( fl. I )' '/i(l 1111"1.-\ <, 1111•·· \',·,. );,A \. l /1111_,_, 

NO COMPARISON: 

ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN tHE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

vs. 

DRILLING ON AUDUBON'S RAINEY SANCTUARY 

NEW YORK, June 5, 1987 -- The controversial plan to open up the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas development is in no way justified by 

the existence of small-scale natural gas production on a National Audubon 

Society wildlife sanctuary in Louisiana. 

The National Audubon Society strongly opposes oil and gas development on 

the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a national treasure 

of our federally protected lands. 

"We are not blindly opposed to energy development on federally protected 

lands, and expect that 95 percent of oil and gas resources on these lands 

eventually will be tapped," said National Audubon President Peter A.A. Berle. 

"What we oppose is industrial activity in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

because it would destroy the unique wilderness quality of the coastal plain 

forever. If Audubon owned undeveloped land on Alaska's North Slope, we would 

never lease out any of those holdings to oil and gas development." 

Possessing extremely diverse wilderness and wildlife, the 100-mile 

coastal plain of the the Arctic Refuge is the only place on the North Slope 

that still is fully protected from development. The National Audubon Society 

believes that wilderness designation by Congress is the best wsy to 

permanently protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, unless additional 

scientific evidence confirms that petroleum extraction can be compatible with 

the refuge's fragile ecosystem-- and only if the presumed oil beneath the 

coastal plain ·:an meet the nation's immediate and long term energy needs. 

Despite Audubon's opposition to drilling in the Arctic refuge, the 

Society's operation of a few natural gas wells on its Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary 

in Louisiana has been cited by development advocates as "proof" that massive 

drilling can take place in the Arctic ecosystem. 

"In terms of size, fragility of ecosystems, extent of drilling and 

wilderness character -- the Arctic and Louisiana refuges are completely 

different," said Mr. Berle. "You can't compare the limited natural gas 

production that has occurred at the Rainey Sanctuary -- a marsh land off the 

Gulf of Mexico -- to the development that is being proposed for the 1.5 

million acre coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. The kind of exploration and 

development planned for the Arctic coastal plain would be on a massive scale 

with a far greater potential to disrupt wildlife and habitat." 

(more) 
181 

-2-

The 26,000-acre Rainey Sanctuary is located on the western shore of 

Louisiana's VeDailion Bay, some 25 miles south of Abbeville. The sanctuary 

has eight miles of frontage on the Gulf of Mexico and is accessible only by 

water. 

J.P. Myers, Audubon's Senior Vice President for Science, pointed out that 

much more scientific data is available on Rainey's ecosystem compared to the 

Arctic's. 

"Scientific understanding of the Arctic ecosystem is in its infancy," Dr. 

Myers said. "Given how sketchy information on the Arctic is, it's difficult 

to judge long-term effects of energy development on the ecosystem. In 

contrast, the temperate marsh ecosystem of the Rainey Sanctuary is 

well-studied, and we are better able to predict what will happen to the 

environment." 

The production of natural gas at Rainey poses less of a risk to the 

environment than oil production would at the Arctic refuge, noted Dr. Myers. 

"Natural gas is probably the most environmentally benign fossil fuel that we 

have available to us. The large-scale oil development that is being proposed 

for the Alaskan refuge is more risky because there's always the chance of a 

major oil spill." 

In Anchorage, David Cline, Audubon Regional Vice President for Alaska, 

emphasized that the extent of drilling at Rainey is small compared to what 

full development of the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain could encompass. 

"At Rainey, we're talking about 30 wells that have been drilled over a period of three decades (only two wells are currently operating). The small 

operation at Rainey bears no resemblance to what is being proposed in the 

Arctic, where a major oil field could mean the construction of as many as 2,500 wells," said Mr. Cline. 

Brock Evans, Audubon's Vice President for National Issues, warned that one of the most destructive features of development in the Arctic would be the 

construction of roads. "No matter how carefully done, oil field development 

is a large scale industrial activity. It requires huge quantities of scarce 

fresh water for ice roads or gravel in order to build networks of roads, drill 

pads, airports and seaports." 

"The long-ten& environmental impact would be devastating to the fragile 

Arctic ecosystem," said Mr. Evans. "In addition, noise from heavy 111achinery 

operating around the clock would displace wildlife, including the huge 

Porcupine caribou herd that uses the coastal plain as a calving area." 

(more) 
182 

-3-

In detail, here are several major reasons why drilling in the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge should not be compared to activity at the Rainey 

Sanctuary: 

1. Fragility of ecosystems: The Arctic ecosystem is much more fragile than 

that of Rainey's. The semi-tropical climate at Rainey provides a year 

round growing season so the marsh soils are very productive. Any damage 

to Rainey's marsh lands would be repaired quickly by nature. Most 

transport activity at Rainey is done via existing csnals and waterways. 

In the harsh Arctic climate, however, the tundra is underlain by 

permafrost which makes the environment especially sensitive to any 

industrial intrusion. Energy development and the road construction that 

accompanies it would cause irreparable damage to the fragile Arctic 

environment and would result in permanent scarring of the landscape. 

2. Major differences in scale of development: Exploration and development at 

Rainey has occurred on a very limited basis. Over the past three decades, 

natural gas drilling at Rainey has affected only 400 acres of the 

26,000-acre sanctuary. On the other hand, massive exploration and 

development is being proposed for the entire 1.5 million-acre coastal 

plain of the 19-million-acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Although 

the drilling pads in the Arctic would cover 1,200 to 1,600 acres, 357,000 

acres could potentially be influenced by development. 

3. Monitoring Controls: Given the inevitable political-economic pressures 

and the major differences in scale of development, drilling at the Arctic 

refuge would not be as strictly monitored as it is at Rainey. All 

operations on Rainey are planned by Audubon's wildlife manager, in 

cooperation with an engineer, geologist and the petroleum company, to map 

out the access route that will cause the least disturbance to the marsh. 

Through the leasing agreement, Audubon has the authority to stop any 

activity on the sanctuary that is potentially damaging to the 

environment. Audubon oversees all cleanup activities at Rainey to ensure the marsh lands have been properly restored. 

4. Wilderness character: The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge offers diverse 

wilderness and spectacular scenery in one of the world's last pristine 

animal ranges. The coastal plain of the refuge is the only place on Alaska's North Slope that still is fully protected from development. 

Although the Rainey sanctuary is home to a wide variety of bird and animal 

species, it is not wilderness. Long before Audubon obtained the 

sanctuary in 1924, it was criss-crossed with man-made canals and was used 

extensively for commercial water transport. 

According to Lonnie Lege, manager of Rainey, drilling at the sanctuary is 

conducted in a way that does not compromise proper environmental management of 

the refuge • 

.. I have the power on the spot to halt any activity that is taking place 

that ia not environmentally sound,w Mr. Lege said. ,_e keep a close watch on 

drilling to correct human error and there has never been a blow-out or oil 

spill on the sanctuary. Extra safety precautions, such as concentric levees 

around drilling sites, have kept environmental damages to a minimum, .. he added. 

(more) 
1~ 

Audubon monitors all cleanup activities after companies have completed drilling and production at a well and its adjacent area. Mr. Lege makes sure that companies restore drill sites and surrounding marsh lands as near to 

their natural state as possible. 

Mr. Lege said that by proper placement of canals, levees, and a system of 

wiers (low dams with spillways), the sanctuary's habitat has actually been 

improved for many species of wildlife. 

On Rainey, there have been 14 producing gas wells, one oil well and 15 

unproductive gas wells drilled. No new drilling has occurred since 1983, and 

two producing gas wells remain. 

History of Audubon's Involvement in Gas Drilling 

The story of how Audubon became involved in gas drilling is a complicated one. The Paul J. Rainey Sanctuary was donated to Audubon in 1924, but the 

original donors of the sanctuary retained a major part of mineral rights 

beneath the refuge. Under Louisiana law, a partial owner of mineral rights 

cannot refuse access to any other owner of similar rights over the surface of 

the land. 

Audubon therefore was presented with a choice of allowing the drilling to occur with the society's safeguards in place, or with no controls at all. 

Audubon entered into a lease with the other owner of the mineral rights in 

order to control drilling activities on the sanctuary. Since the 1950s, 

Audubon has been monitoring all erploring, drilling and production activities on the Rainey sanctuary. 

I I I I 

For more information, contact: 

David Cline, Regional Vice President of Audubon's Alaska office in Anchorage 

at 907-276-7034. 

Brock Evans, Vice President for National Issues in Washington, D.C. at 

202-547-9009. 

J.P. Myers, Senior Vice President for Science at Audubon's headquarters in New 

York at 212-547-9281. 

Robert SanGeorge, Vice President for Public Affairs, or Betty Olt, Assistant 

Director at 212-832-3200. 

# I # I 
184 

. / 

Gwich'in Steering Committee P 0. Box 202768 • Anchorage. Alaska 99520 •(907) 258-6814 ·Fax (907) 274-4145 

·'< ·--. \ ~.\~~1 

~~ 

Statement of Sarah James 

of Arctic Village, Alaska 

before the 

House Committee on Resources 

on the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

August 3, 1995 

"In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistepce." 

-- International Covenants on Human Rights 

"Money doesn't last long. Caribou last forever." 

-- Peter Tritt, Gwich'in Elder 

Sarah James, Arctic Village • Jonathon Solomon, Ft. Yukon • Norma Kassi, Old Crow • Johnny Charlie, Ft. McPherson 

Ernest Erick, Venetie • Kay Wallis, Ft. Yukon • Gladys Netro, Old Crow • Alestine Andre, Arctic Red River 
185 

Sheluk naii. (All mr relations.) 

My name is Sarah James. I am Netsi Gwich'in from Arctic Village, Alaska. Thank 

you for inviting me to speak for my Gwich'in people. I am here with the direction of 

the Elders of the 15 Gwich'in villages in northeast Alaska and northwest Canada. 

For a long time some members of Congress have tried to ignore the Gwich'in on this 

issue of oil development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Maybe they think 

we are not important enough to interfere with oil development. But we are the 

people the most at risk because we rely on the Porcupine caribou herd for our 

economic and cultural survival. 

Every summer lots of people from Congress come to Alaska to see Prudhoe Bay 

and to visit the oil companies. They fly over the Refuge and go to Kaktovik, but 

they never stop in Arctic Village. We always invite them to come to Arctic Village 

so we can show them our way of life. We are hospitable people but they always say 

they have been told it's too hard to get to our village. That's not really true because 

you have to fly right over Arctic Village on your way to the North Slope. We have 

a good airport big enough for your plane: 

My people have lived on this land for thousands of years. You' cannot understand 

this issue by flying over the refuge and meeting only with people who want oil 

development. So today I invite you all to stop in Arctic Village during your visit to 

Alaska this summer. You need to see our homeland and listen to the concerns of 

my people too before you decide how to vote on this issue. 

What happens to the Arctic Refuge is not only an environmental issue. It is a 

human rights issue too, because the survival of the Gwich'in culture depends on the 

protection of the birthplace of the Porcupine caribou herd. It is about the basic 

tribal right we have to carry on our traditional ways. 

The Gwich'in are caribou people. Our ancestors lived with the caribou right where 

we are today. The caribou provides 75 percent of the protein for my village. But it 

is not just what we eat, it is who we are. Our whole way of life as a people is tied 

to the Porcupine caribou. It is in our language, and our songs and stories. I grew up 

hearing all the stories from my parents and Elders, learning how to hunt and 
186 

preserve the meat for \vinter. and how to take good care of the old people and the 

children. 

Villages like Arctic Village and Old Crow hunt the most caribou but all 15 Gwich'in 

villages in Alaska and Canada rely on it through sharing and trade. If the caribou 

herd is not healthy, we have no where else to go. We are strong because we live on 

our ancestral land. It is our responsibility to keep this land clean and to pass it on to 

our children and grand-children, and for your children too. 

The oil companies say that development won't hurt the caribou. but they are not 

telling the truth. Our Elders know that. They say we should never disturb the 

caribou birthplace because it is a sensitive place. Now the biologists have found out 

the same thing with science. 

Even after 20 years, pregnant females and caribou with calves still avoid the haul 

road and pipeline. Biologists say the herd could decrease by 20-40 percent, and it 

could change its migration route if the birthplace is disturbed. The central arctic 

caribou herd used to have their calves at Prudhoe Bay, but they don't calve there 

anymore. They were lucky because there were good places for them to go to the 

east and west. They have their calves in those places now .. It's not like that in the 

Arctic Refuge. The mountains come too close to the ocean and the caribou will not 

have another safe and healthy place for calving if they have to move. 

Lately it seems like people who want development will say almost anything about 

the Gwich' in to get oil development. It's hard to fight this way because our Elders 

told us to protect the Arctic Refuge and to "do it in a good way." But I will try to 

point out some of the misinformation people are using against us. 

The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation says we oppose their right to develop their 

own land. This is not true. We have never taken a position on development on 

Kaktovik lands in the Arctic Refuge. Our position is that no oil development should 

be allowed in the I 002 Area which is public land and contains the most important 

caribou calving areas. The Arctic Refuge is the only piece of the North Slope that is 

closed to oil drilling. 

I was told Senator Murkowski said caribou calves were not born in the I 002 Area in 

the last three years. This is not true. This summer 95 percent of the Porcupine 

caribou calves were born in the exact area where they want pennission to drill 

according to State of Alaska biologists. They think you carmot have oil 
187 

development in the I 001 Area without hurting the Porcupine caribou herd, but thel} 

our governor and oil companies tell you just the opposite. That's not the right way 

to decide things. 

Since the Alaska Federation of Natives passed its resolution for oil development, 

lots of people say Alaska Natives all agree with development in the Arctic Refuge. 

Again, they are not giving you a true picture. Many Alaska tribes support the 

Gwich'in. The AFN resolution only passed because of a block vote by the Native 

regional corporations. What they don't tell you is people representing 70 percent of 

the villages and Native non-profits voted with the Gwich' in. The AFN vote 

strengthened my people because it proved we have good support in other tribes, 

especially the rural areas where people still live by subsistence. 

We are really concerned because there are so many wrong things being said and we 

are not able to tell everyone how things are. I urge the committee to understand and 

respect the concerns of the Gwich'in people. We hope to see you in Arctic Village 

when you come to Alaska. 

Mahsi' choo (Thank you very much.) 
188 

OLIVER LEAVITT 

VICE PRESIDENT 

ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION 

TESTIMONY 

THE FUTURE OF THE COASTAL PLAIN AREA 

OF THE 

ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

BEFORE 

THE 

HOUSE RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

August 3, 1995 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Oliver Leavitt. 

appreciate this opportunity to appear today and to submit testimony on the Coastal Plain 

area of Alaska's North Slope. 

I appear today in my capacity as Vice President of Arctic Slope Regional 

Corporation (ASRC). ASRC represents the views and interests of its more than 7,000 

Eskimo shareholders who live in the eight remote Villages on Alaska's North Slope. 

also serve as the President of the North Slope Borough Assembly. 

1 . Introduction 

The future status of the small Coastal Plain area of the 19 million acre 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is very important to the nation's long-term 

economic well-being and to its energy security. The status of the 1.5 million acre 

Coastal Plain area is also of critical importance to the future of the lnupiat Eskimo 

people. We are the full-time, year-round residents of Alaska's North Slope. Our 
T--IIMr.OIIow.._ 

Aldie .... ...-~ 

--~-­ u.MedStillta .......... 1U• 

Aopot:S,19!15 

189 

ancestors have lived in the Arctic for thousands of years and have been the stewards of 

its land, environment and wildlife. 

2. ASRC's Interest in the Coastal Plain Decision 

The interests of the lnupiat people in the Coastal Plain are economic and 

cultural. Congressional action on the future use of the Coastal Plain will determine 

whether or not my people will have a long-term tax base from which to provide essential 

public services. It will also determine whether there will be jobs and economic activity 

for our young people and our children. 

Congressional decisions will also determine whether we will have the resources 

to maintain our culture: to teach the lnupiat language in our schools; to maintain our 

traditions; to honor our elders; and to preserve our unique culture. Finally, this decision 

will determine whether we, the people who once held aboriginal title to Prudhoe Bay 

and all of the North Slope's 56 million acres, will be permitted to develop the 92,160 

acres of highly prospective private lands that we own in the Coastal Plain at and near the 

Village of Kaktovik. 

let me summarize briefly my people's specific interests in the Coastal Plain. 

a. Tax base. public services and local goyernment 

Prior to the discovery of Prudhoe Bay in 1968, there was no tax 

base and no effective means to provide essential public services to the lnupiat people in 

Page2 
T---Mr.Oiow._ 

................... 

........ c--...- ~ 

1-.151-.--... ,, 

Alpol),.-

190 

our eight remote Villages. In these Villages, sewage service was by "honey pot" Water 

was hauled by sled (usually as ice) from lakes and streams. Children were sent to BIA 

schools thousands of miles away. Access to quality medical care did not exist. Fire and 

police protection were exceptions to the rule, Electrical service was unreliable. 

Communication with the outside was sporadic. Housing conditions were very poor. 

The cost of food and other essentials was many times that of other areas of the United 

States. 

1\.ly people survived by their wits, by barter, by subsistence hunting, and by 

continuing our lnupiat tradition of "sharing." 

Prudhoe Bay's discovery and subsequent developments brought major changes. 

These changes included, for the first time, jobs, economic activity, a local industrial tax 

base, and an opportunity to establish a local Borough (County) form of government We 

established the "North Slope Borough" government in 1972. The Borough has actively 

addressed my peoples' most important needs for essential public services. For the first 

time, we are now able to provide our people with police, fire, medical and educational 

services. Prudhoe Bay, the pipeline and the commercialization of new smaller oil fields 

made this possible. 

b. ASRC and orivate economic deyelooroent 

Prudhoe Bay's discovery also brought private sector jobs and an 

opportunity for economic activity to my people. Through ASRC, our regional 
T........,oiMr.OII..~ 

Aldlc:51opt ......... __ ........ ~ _ u.w---... •"• ...... ~-

191 

corporation, and our Village Corporations, my people are now a part of this activity. 

Today ASRC owns and operates construction, pipeline and oil field service companies 

which provide jobs, dividends and economic opportunity for our lnupiat shareholders. 

Development activities at Prudhoe Bay and other new smaller, but important, North 

siope oil fields made this possible. 

c. Value and use of our private lands 

Finally, Prudhoe Bay's discovery and the construction of the TransAlaska Pipeline gave economic value to the potential mineral estate of the land rights we 

were granted under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. Through lease 

relationships with major energy companies, ASRC has generated capital to expand our 

construction and service companies and to create new jobs. 

Unfortunately, the revenue from our. lands, to date, has come only from lease 

payments. Prior to 1971 we, the lnupiat Eskimo people, owned Prudhoe Bay and all of 

the North Slope by aboriginal title. Yet, we have had no commercial oil discoveries or 

production on our land. We have no ownership interest in a single barrel of the 

10 billion barrels the North Slope has produced. 
,.......,.Mr ......... _...,........,~ 

.-......,,,. ---~-- Uoiloll--·... . = 

192 

d. Uncertain economic future 

Obviously, oil development in the Arctic has improved my people's 

quality of life in many ways. Oil production has opened new educational, employment 

and economic opportunities. 

But, in major respects, our future is still very uncertain. My people's future is 

linked to a Con~ressional decision on future uses of the Coastal Plain. 

Prudhoe Bay's oil production began in 1977 but now is in decline. Oil 

production peaked at over 2.1 million BID in 1988 and is now down to about 1.5 

million BID. This is a 25 percent decline. And oil production continues to decline at 10 

percent annually, even with the opening of some new smaller fields. 

Major new discoveries are needed to attract exploration capital and extend the 

economic life of the pipeline. If discoveries are not made we will soon see our Borough 

government's tax base seriously eroded. This means the minimal public services that the 

Eskimo people enjoy today will have to be cut back. 

Already, we are seeing job opportunities disappear as North Slope oil production 

declines and many oil industry activities are down-sized, consolidated and reduced to 

"maintenance" level operations. 

Finally, without Congressional action, the economic opportunities for our Eskimoowned companies on the North Slope and the economic value of our land will shrink 

and eventually disappear. 

PqeS 
r-..,.,Mr.--

Aidic...,......,.~ 

..---....... --~-­.... Alpot3, ,,. 

193 

That is the future we see if Congress does not act to open the Nation's best 

prospect for new "world class" oil and gas reserves to leasing. 

3. Natjon's Best Prospect and Need for Decision 

If Congress acts to open the Coastal Plain to multiple uses - to refuge 

management and to leasing and properly regulated exploration and development - we 

see a brighter future, for all of Alaska's Native people, for the State of Alaska, and for the 

nation. This future could mean as many as 735,000 new jobs in all fifty states; an 

increase in our gross national product of $50 billion; a major reduction in our balance of 

trade deficit and the $40 billion annually we now spend for imported oil; and a major 

source of new revenue to reduce the Federal deficit. 

No one disputes that the Coastal Plain is the nation's best remaining prospect for 

major new oil and gas reserves. Government and private geologists are in full agreement 

here. They have identified 26 separate major oil and gas prospects in the Coastal Plain. 

This does not necessarily mean Prudhoe Bay's 10 billion barrel discovery will be 

repeated. But it does means the potential is there for one or more Prudhoe Bay size oil 

fields and many smaller oil fields. 

The need for immediate Congressional action is clear. Oil imports now exceed 

50 percent of total United States demand. Various projections are that oil import 

dependence will soon grow to 60 and 70 percent. 

P~e6 
T--IIIIMr.Oiiow.._... 

-..... ....-~ 

-

Uolloll--1111.... .. ~--:of 

Alpll31,1-

194 

Domestic oil companies are willing to commit additional resources and capital on 

the North Slope. But, absent authorization for leasing in prime areas such as the Coastal 

Plain, these resources and jobs will be allocated to exploration projects in other 

countries. 

4. Potential of the Coastal Plain 

The Coastal Plain of ANWR presents the single most important option 

available to the nation to add major new domestic oil reserves and production. 

This option is available in a time frame which will permit new reserves to be 

transported to markets in the lower 48 states. If the Coastal Plain is not opened soon, 

however, there will come a time when Prudhoe Bay and other oil reserves will be 

substantially depleted. This means that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) will 

eventually become uneconomic and will be retired and dismantled. This could happen 

in 10 to 15 years. Because of long lead times for Arctic development, a Coastal Plain 

decision is needed now, this year, 

The dismantling of TAPS would make it unlikely that Coastal Plain oil and other 

potential North Slope revenues could ever be produced. This also means that other 

small offshore and onshore discoveries on the North Slope would never reach 

commercial production. 
T........, ... Mr. ou...- -........ ............ c.-...-- ~ IW--- ......,:~,_ .... ll'u 

195 

5. Clear Precedent for Development 

Opening the Coastal Plain to leasing does not set new a precedent. 

Prudhoe Bay and other fields next to the Coastal Plain were leased thirty years ago. 

The Department of the Interior has had an aggressive Beaufort Sea OCS leasing 

policy in offshore waters adjacent to the Coastal Plain for more than a decade. The State 

of Alaska had been leasing lands within the three mile limit- touching the shore of the 

Coastal Plain -for years. Wells are being drilled in these waters and discoveries are 

being made. Yet, the dangers presented by development in these icy, turbulent, winddriven federal and state waters exceed those presented in the onshore Coastal Plain. 

6. legislative Recommendations 

a. Impact Aid for Kaktovik Village 

ASRC recommends that Federal legislation to lease the Coastal Plain 

include appropriate impact aid for Kaktovik Village to provide essential infrastructure and 

any necessary social services. A decision to open the Coastal Plain will bring greatly 

increased visitor traffic and other pressures on a Village whose people support oil 

development, but who desire to retain their privacy, their culture and their character as a 

traditional subsistence Eskimo community. 

With advance planning and modest financial aid both the Borough and Kaktovik 

can play an important role in meeting the legitimate needs of the government in 

connection with Coastal Plain exploration and development. 

Page 8 
196 

,........, ...... -..- - ... ...-c...-- ..-.--

........ ~--.... o!a AlopolJ, 1!1!15 

The impact aid provision should also be available for any other community that 

might be effected by leasing and development. An impact aid fund may not be needed, 

but would provide a safety net. 

b. Major Oil Company Amendment to Take Eskimo Prooertv Rights 

In previous Congresses, several major oil companies have made an 

effort to secure adoption of an amendment to Coastal Plain legislation which would be 

an unlawful taking of the contractual and property rights of ASRC and its Eskimo 

shareholders. This amendment would prevent ASRC from engaging in exploratory 

drilling on the private lands owned by ASRC in the Coastal Plain on the date of 

enactment of leasing legislation. Instead, such activity could not occur on our private 

lands until • the first lease sale is held. 

As background, ASRC received the rights to 92,160 acres of subsurface in and 

adjacent to the Coastal Plain in an August 9, 1983 land exchange with the United States. 

Approximately 69,000 acres of this subsurface estate is not in the Coastal Plain. ASRC 

was free, from the date of the receipt of this land, to engage in exploratory drilling on 

these iands. However, approximately 23,000 acres of ASRC's subsurface estate is within 

the Coalltal Plain as that term was defined in section 1002 of ANILCA. On this 23,000 

acre parcel, ASRC had agreed to refrain from exploratory drilling until the date of 

enactment of legislation opening either the Coastal Plain of ANWR or the ASRC lands to 

oil and gas exploration or development. Once Congress acts to open the Coastal Plain 

Pap9 
r-..,., .... ~~ 

Mlk Slope ....... c.o,..llolo 

.......... 

~---~-­.... ,.. Allpolt3,H!IS 

197 

of ANWR to oil and gas exploration or development, ASRC has a right to engage in 

exploratory drilling on this 23,000 acres of privately owned land (known as "the fourth 

township"). Enclosed for the information of the Committee as Appendix A is a 

February 28, 1989 memorandum that describes in more detail ASRC's rights to engage in 

exploratory drilling on the fourth township. 

Several major oil companies have been active in proposing an amendment to 

preclude ASRC from engaging in exploratory drilling on this fourth township of land until 

after the first lease sale. Ironically, Exxon and other oil companies pushing this 

amendment were invited to submit lease offers on our Kaktovik land in the mid-1980s. 

Now they want Congress to give them an advantage they declined to purchase on the 

open market. 

We believe that the proposed amendment is bad public policy. It would 

constitute an unfair legislative taking of our private property rights. Some major oil 

companies contend that this amendment will ensure a "level playing field" for all 

participants in the first lease sale in ANWR. At the same time, several of the proponents 

of this amendment have participated in exploratory wells in the Federal and State 

offshore areas directly adjacent to the Coastal Plain of ANWR and the ASRC lands. By 

preventing ASRC from engaging in exploratory drilling on ASRC's private lands while 

engaging in these same activities on adjacent offshore leases, these companies are in fact 

heavily tilting the playing field in their favor. 

Page10 
T-.., .. Mr.OIIo..._ 

-.......... ~ 

-,.,... 

......... .. --3, H'J5 

~--....... 

198 

c. Land Use and Environmental Provisions 

As a member of the Borough Assembly, as an officer of ASRC, as a 

Whaling Captain and as a subsistence hunter of caribou, I have carefully watched oil 

development on the North Slope. As a young man in the 1960's, like many of my 

people, I had concerns, I feared the impact of this new technology. 

History and thirty years of experience demonstrate that my fears were unfounded. 

Health stocks of fish and wildlife are compatible with responsible oil development. The 

Central Arctic caribou herd at Prudhoe Bay is larger than ever - 3,000 in 1972 and 

24,000 today - and thriving. Some species of once endangered birds are coming back 

in the oil fields. 

And the footprint of development is constantly getting smaller. Technology is 

showing major gains. Horizontal drilling means more wells able to reach farther from 

smaller drilling pads. Better land use planning consolidates common facilities. Gravel 

roads are being replaced by winter ice roads which melt without leaving a trace of man's 

activity. 

But these gains do not happen by chance. They are the product of hard work by 

an industry that is constantly being pushed by the North Slope Borough, by the State of 

Alaska and by the Federal government. The push is to produce the oil we need more 

efficiently with fewer and fewer impacts on the land, the environment and the fish and 

wildlife. 

Pasen 
T-..yoiMr.oa-.-

An:llo: ............ ~ 

-. Uollool .. __ ~--..... 1 u w 

~3,1M5 

199 

d. Wjldljfe in the Coastal Plain 

Mr. Chairman, those who oppose leasing in the Coastal Plain and 

advocate designation as Wilderness, have advanced a wide range of shifting arguments 

over the years. In recent times, they have turned their arguments on the need to protect 

the Porcupine Caribou herd. 

There is a need to protect ill species of fish and wildlife from being adversely 

impacted. This includes caribou and other species. Fortunately, we know how to do 

this. Prudhoe Bay demonstrates compatibility with the Central Arctic Herd. It also 

demonstrates years of caribou-friendly planning and operational experience. 

The caribou is a very adaptive animal. The Canadians showed this when they 

drilled fifty or more oil wells just east of the Coastal Plain over the past twenty five 

years. They also demonstrated this when they built the Dempster Highway through the 

heart of the range of the Porcupine Caribou herd. 

There are many known and proven ways to explore for and develop oil fields in 

ways that are compatible with caribou. These included raised pipelines and covered 

ramps to assist pipeline crossing; seasonal dosing of exploration during the short calving 

season; and concentrating year round activities such as hotels and maintenance ·facilities 

in areas least used by caribou and other wildlife. 

Pap12 
T-, .. Mr.-..- _.,..,._~ 

-.. 

t-.._____ .. ~-­.. ""-"""-

200 

7. Alaska federation of Natives Supoort 

The Alaska Federation of Natives (AEN), the highly respected state-wide 

organization of Alaska's Native institutions, supports leasing the Coastal Plain. I would 

like to submit AFN's June 13, 1995 Resolution for the hearing record. 

AEN supports leasing in the Coastal Plain for a wide variety of reasons that are 

very important to Alaska's Native Americans. 

Over 85 percent of Alaska's revenues for education, medical care, public 

sanitation and other programs come from taxes and royalty on North Slope oil 

North Slope oil provides many of the jobs for Native people and much of the 

economic activity that is necessary to Native-owned businesses enterprises. 

Many of Alaska's rural villages lag behind urban areas in employment, public 

services and opportunity. These are often Native Villages. Closing this gap requires the 

real resources that North Slope oil and the Coastal Plain can provide. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should note that passage of the AFN Resolution was not 

unanimous. This is what happens in democratic institutions. The vote was 16 to 9 by 

AFN's Board, an almost 2 to 1 majority. Ms. Sarah james, a member of the Gwich'in 

Steering Committee, and a witness on this panel spoke against the AFN Resolution. 

want to make a couple of points about the Steering Committee's opposition: 

P.qe13 
T.......,efMr.~.._ 

-~ 

-.. Uoilool ... __ ~--

........ .,..,. ~ I'. 

~3,1!1!15 

201 

flrg, I do not believe they represent the views of the majority of the Athabascan 

Indians who live in the interior of Alaska or Doyon, the Athabascan Regional 

Corporation. 

~ in 1980 those who call themselves the Gwich'in leased all of their 1.8 

million acres of land on the Venetie Indian Reservation. This oil and gas lease was to 

the Rouge! Oil Company for $1.8 million. 

Third, the lease, which was recorded a matter of public record, did not contain 

any provisions to protect the Porcupine caribou herd which often passes through the 

reservation during its annual migration. 

ful.!rih, after the expirations of the original oil and gas lease, the tribal government 

for the 350 residents of the two Villages on the Venetie Reservation again advertised and 

offered all of their 1.8 million acres of land to any oil company for oil and gas leases. 

Fifth, a number of the present Members of today's Gwich'in Steering Committee, 

including Ms. Sarah james, were among the officials who signed the oil and gas leases as 

well as the subsequent offer to lease. 

Mr. President, to keep the history straight, I submit these lease documents for the 

hearing record. 

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, rny people want what the Gwich'in 

have already had. We want the opportunity to have the economic benefit of our private 

lands. We also believe that the public land area of the Coastal Plain should be 

Page 14 
T-,oiM<.~~ 

An:licSI.-...-~ -.. ~-- t-.. ___ ...... __ _ 

~3,1995 

202 

developed for its highest and best use. This will enable all Native people in Alaska to 

have a better life with greater opportunity for their children. 

CONCLUSION 

Mr. Chairman, my people appreciate the opportunity to present our views. The 

future of the Coastal Plain is of critical importance to our future and our children's 

future. We r<;!cognize that our interests sometimes get lost in debates involving national 

energy policy, balance of payments, the budget deficit and other fundamental issues of 

government policy. 

We strongly urge the Committee to open the Coastal Plain to a carefully 

regulated, environmentally sensitive program of leasing, exploration and development. 

[The attachments to this statement were placed in the files 

of the committee.] 

Page 15 
203 

Statement of Scott I. Kerr 

Manager, Kuparuk Development 

ARCO Alaska, Inc. 

to the 

Committee on Resources 

U. S. House of Representatives 

Hearing on Opening the 1 002 area of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 011 Exploration and Development 

August 3, 1995 

I am Scott Kerr, Kuparuk Development Manager for ARCO. Alaska, Inc. with 

offices located at 700 G Street in Anchorage. I would like to share with you my 

knowledge regarding oil and gas development on the North Slope. I am 

responsible for identifying and developing new reserve opportunities in the 

Kuparuk River Unit and the surrounding area. 

Attachment 1: Map of North Slope Accumulations 

I would like to discuss the West Sak oil accumulation, most of which overlies the 

Kuparuk reservoir. I will describe ARCO's past efforts to develop West Sak and 

the technical and economic challenges we must overcome in order to 

produce this resource. Because of the large amount of oil in place, West Sak is 

often mistaken for another Prudhoe Bay. However. due to poor oil quality and 

poor reservoir rock quality that is not the case. Put another way, not every 

seven-footer can play in the NBA. 

We know a lot about West Sak. It was discovered in 1971. West Sak is a shallow 

reservoir, located just beneath the permafrost at depths ranging from 2,500 feet 

down to 4,500 feet. The formation extends over 300 square miles, stretching from 

the southern boundary of the Kuparuk River Unit to the Arctic Ocean. The 

formation is 25 miles long and 15 miles wide. As the Kuparuk and Milne Point 

fields have been developed. the industry has drilled hundreds of wells which 

have penetrated the West Sak on their way down to the Kuparuk reservoir. This 

has allowed us to obtain extensive reservoir information, including log analysis, 

core samples and fluid analysis from the entire West Sak. 

West Sak oil is what we call heavy oil. The oil is of similar quality to other heavy 

oil accumulations world wide. Unfortunately ..... West Sakis in Alaska .... not 

California or Oklahoma. As a result, the value of West Sak oil is diminished not 

only by the temperature of the oil and the oil properties but also by the cost of 

overcoming Arctic conditions and transporting the oil through an 800 mile 
204 

2 

pipeline to tankers which must then carry the oil to marl<et. These are significant 

economic hurdles that makes West Sak development a risky venture. 

We estimate that West Sak oll-in-place exceeds 1 0 billion barrels, which 

makes it larger than the Kuparuk field, but smaller than Prudhoe Bay. 

Oil-in-place is a measure of the total oil volume contained in the formation. 

Because only a fraction of the oil-In-place in any accumulation can be 

produced, reserve estimates are a better measure of an oil accumulation's true 

potential. Reserves- by the Securities and Exchange Commission definition -

are barrels of oll which can be economically produced using today's 

technology at today's oil price. 

The State of Alaska estimates original total reserves of 2.5 billion barrels at 

Kuparuk and 12.2 billion barrels at Prudhoe Bay. In contrast, ARCO currently 

carries no West Sak reserves in its SEC filings. We have been working to develop 

technology which will enable us to book West Sak reserves. But even under our 

most optimistic scenario we anticipate potential reserves in the range of a half 

billion barrels - a significant number but substantially less than the giant fields to 

which West Sak is often compared. Half a billion barrels is still a significant prizeone that ARCO has pursued and will continue to pursue. 

Attachment 2: west Sak Type Log/Prudhoe Type Log 

Our estimate of potential reserves is low because in addition to containing 

heavy, viscous oil. the West Sakis not one thick, continuous formation. Instead, It 

Is composed of five primary ell-bearing strata. Each contains several sub layers 

of varying thickness and areal extent which are separated from each other by 

impermeaele shales. These isolated oil-bearing strata and sub strata are thin 

and of poor rock quality when compared to producing heavy oll accumulations 

elsewhere in the world. In comparison to Prudhoe Bay, the West Sakis of very 

poor quality and would be challenging to produce with today's technology. 

Attachment 3: East I West Cross Section 

Analysis of data collected during Kuparuk development shows that the West 

Sak formation gets deeper to the East. As the formation becomes deeper, the 

oll becomes warmer, less viscous and easier to produce. Reservoir rock quality 

also varies widely across the field. This variability has encouraged development 

of a limited area of the West Sak In the Milne Polnt field. 
205 

3 

Attachment 4 : West Sak Core Area 

It may also allow development of a relatively small area of the West Sak 

within the existing Kuparuk River Unit boundary. Rock and oil quality are good 

enough in this area to justify research and testing of new technologies which 

could allow production of a small portion of this large resource. 

Attachment 5: West Sak Time Line 

ARCO has been working towards West Sak Development since 1971. Our 

approach has been driven by oil price, tax and royalty regimes, technology 

and well performance. Our first priority was to bring on production from the 

underlying Kuparuk reservoir. As Kuparuk development has proceeded, we 

have collected West Sak data from hundreds of wells. 

In early 1981, ARCO initiated a significant West Sak delineation and research 

effort in conjunction with ARCO Exploration and Production Technology Center 

in Plano, Texas. This effort cost over $200 million, spanned nine years and 

included a three-year West Sak production pilot which began in 1983. Oil prices 

at that time were significantly higher than today, encouraging us to attempt 

commercialization of what was seen, even then, as a marginal asset with many 

technical challenges. 

We produced more than 1 million barrels of West Sak oil and learned that both 

waterflooding and tertiary EOR will be required to produce West Sak 

successfully. 

We also tested completion techniques necessary to produce cold, thick oil 

through a low pem1eability and highly unconsolidated reservoir rock. The 

oil doesn't flow easily and when It does it tends to carry large amounts of 

formation sand with it ...... sand which is deposited in producing wells choking off 

production. 

We had to perform expensive additional wellwork to obtain reasonable well 

productivity and to keep the heavy oil from carrying sand into our well 

bores in order to maintain these reasonable production rates. The pilot project 

was a technical success but an economic failure. We developed the 

technology required to provide a 300 to 400 bopd rate in the very best part of 

West Sak. However, the cost of operating the pilot project was too high to 

continue production from even the best part of the West Sak accumulation. 
206 

4 

The pilot was abandoned in 1986 and production has never resumed. Research, 

continued, however, followed by an additional well and production test in early 

1989. Plans for a second West Sak pilot were scrapped later that year. That 

decision was based on a number of factors Including a decision by the state to 

Increase severance taxes at Kuparuk by an estimated 40 percent. This was a 

major hit because every barrel of West Sak production would have been taxed 

at the higher Kuparuk tax rate. West Sak is a marginal prospect which could not 

support the cost of its own, stand alone processing facilities. 

Our decision was also influenced by an expectation that oil prices would remain 

low for a number of years and the fact that there were still significant remaining 

technical challenges. In late 1994 ARCO resumed work on West Sak. We took 

this step because a lot has happened in recent years. 

On the technical front. our industry has had a decade of technological 

advances .... many of which could help lower costs and increase production 

rates at West Sak. In addition. a large scale, tertiary enhanced oil recovery 

project has been approved and is being developed at Kuparuk. The availability 

of this EOR infrastructure for use at West Sak significantly lowers a prior 

economic hurdle. 

On the political front. the state of Alaska is actively seeking ways to encourage 

development of marginal oil accumulations. Earlier this summer, Governor Tony 

Knowles signed legislation giving the state the flexibility to adjust royalty rates for 

fields like West Sak. The state has also developed a mechanism for preserving 

the separate tax status of separate reservoirs produced through a common 

processing facility. 

Given all that has changed, it made sense to look ot West Sak again to 

determine if now is the time to again begin moving towards commercialization. 

Our goal is to make West Sak viable in a low oil price world. The current effort 

began in our technology center where a group of scientists and engineers 

identified new and emerging technologies which might be applied to the 

problems of producing West Sak. Teams in Plano and Alaska are assessing these 

technologies to design necessary field tests. We want to determine If we can 

break through Impermeable shale barriers with massive hydraulic fractures. We 

want to determine If multilateral wells targeting multiple strata can provide 

adequate production rates at an affordable cost. We want to test new sand 

control methodologies. 
207 

5 

We will be seeking funding to re-enter the 1989 test well and possibly drill new 

wells for the purpose of conducting these field tests. By 1997 we hope to have 

a prototype well completion which could be used to develop the most 

attractive portions of the West Sak accumulation. 

Field development will depend on whether these efforts increase well 

productivity while also decreasing development and operating costs. It is our 

hope that these new technologies will allow us to proceed with field 

development. When that day comes, our approach will be conservative 

and incremental. Field development will be accomplished through a series of 

cautious, carefully planned steps designed to minimize the considerable 

economic and technical risk inherent to West Sak. 

As I said before, because West Sakis a marginal resource which can't 

support the cost of stand-alone development. every barrel of West Sak oil 

will be produced through existing Kuparuk facilities. As the Kuparuk rates 

decline and as we eliminate the economic and technical hurdles, we will 

begin developing the very best part of the West Sak. We will drill a handful of 

wells, test and enhance the economic viability of our operations and improve 

our technology before expanding our operations into areas of decreasing 

reservoir quality and increasing risk. 

In short, we hope to establish a foundation from which we can expand as 

project performance dictates. West Sak will not require major new facility 

expansions. It will require, however, fabrication of smaller expansion modules 

along with drill site production modules that will be constructed in Alaska. West 

Sak development will also require the drilling of hundreds of new development 

wells over the production life of the field. This work could be spread over a 

decade or more. 

Attachment 6: Kuparuk and West Sak Rate Forecast 

This graph shows estimated West Sak production rates. If West Sak could 

compete economically with Kuparuk field production for processing space, it 

would be brought on sooner. The converse is also true. Initial West Sak 

production rates will be low and will gradually replace Kuparuk production. We 

estimate maximum rates of less than 150,000 bopd. This is equal to less than 10 

percent of current, daily North Slope oil production. 
208 

6 

Attachment 7: North Slope Rate Forecast 

West Sal< will not keep TAPS full. In fact. ARCO's forecast of future West 

Sal< potential is a very small port of the future forecast of known resource 

potential. But in combination with production from other North Slope 

resource areas- including those areas not currently accessible -- it can 

extend the life of this strategic national asset and make a meaningful 

contribution to US daily production. 

Attachment 8: Summary 

In summary, the West Sal< contains a significant amount of oil but, it does 

not have multi-billion barrels of reserves like the Prudhoe Bay or Kuparul< 

fields contained. Due to its heavy oil and lack of sand continuity, the 

percentage of oil recovered from West Sal< will be significantly lower than other 

NS fields. We estimate that the overall recovery of oil from the West Sol< will be 

below 10% of the oil in place, compared to almost 40% recovery in Kuparul< and 

over 50% recovery in Prudhoe Bay. In the best areas, the recovery from West 

Sal< can approach 30% but, a large area of the West Sak will not be economic 

to produce. 

Production from the West Sal< will be much lower than other North Slope fields, 

requiring the drilling of numerous wells to produce the field. West Sak is both a 

technical and economic challenge. We have spent over $200 MM on this field 

and still have not come up with solutions to all the technical challenges facing 

us. Future development will be risky and require new drilling and completion 

technology not yet In common use. This technology has greatly improved 

during the past 10 years and we believe that portions of the West Sok reservoir 

can be economic to develop and produce into existing NS facilities. ARCO sees 

the West Sak as a key resource to our company and is committed to bringing 

the field on production in an economic fashion. 
Alaska North Slope Accum
·~:--,· -- ·"· ;,ir ~· .:-,~:r;:J!_~~--~i!ia>G:~a: a w ; 

West Sak Type Log Prudho

f' .. _ "'1 fL--...... "'1 

- l:=:-=::3l:=J D 

c 

B 

A4 

A3 

-~---

A2 

A1 

• OIL PRODUCTIVE ROCK 

::::~c~~;;;:,::r,~·-:, •· '··'.'·::::~:1'.~.~i·:;;-;:~xi~Fr} /~~"f:if~ a 
· 11100' 

-4000' 

A 

sw 

West Sak Cross Sec

Base Permafrost 

1U 

I 3MI I 

SKM I 

-Oil 

------- O!VWater Contact 

Kuparuk Unit 
ctS 

Cl) 

<C -

Cl) -

0 

(.) 

~ 

ctS 

en 

212 
West Sak Historical T

70 I 71 ' 72 1 73 ' 74 I 75 ' 76 I 77 ' 78 I 79 ' 80 1 81 I 82 ' 83 . 84 I 85 I 86 ' 87 

I L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

ll I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

A I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 

Wes1 Sak I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 1 I 

Olsc. Well I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I 

I 1 l I I I 

I l l 

' l & 1 I 

We•t Sak SWPT 1 1 D<llled & Tetlod 

I 'A I : I I 

1 Ugnu SWPT I 

1 D<llled & Tooled 

I 

I 

A: 22-W!HI

D<llled & Te

I ' 

I I 
214 

...., 

f/) 

ca 

0 

C1) 

I.. 

0 

LL 

c: 

0 

·-...., 

0 

::J 

"C 

0 

I.. 

a. 

ca 

·-...., 

c: 

C1) 

...., 

0 

a. 

~ 

::J 

I.. 

ca 

c. 

::J 

~ 

"C 

c: 

ca 

~ 

ca 

CJ) 

...., 

f/) 

C1) 

~ ~ ~ ~ 0 

~ ~ "' 

Od08 
North Slope Production 

1600000 r--.---r--.--,r-~---r--.---r--.---.--,---r--,---

1400000 

1200000 

1000000 

0 

Q. 

0 

m sooooo 

600000 

400000 

200000 

0 

~ 'Source: Sate of Alaska, Depa
r; --c:;;--- -- . 

~1 ~ ::;_a-

: 

~ 

I 

r.'i 

~} 

r 

ti 

.. 

West Sak Summar

• It is not another Prudhoe Bay 

• Recovery will be lower than other 

• Production rates are lower than ot

• We still face significant economic 

• Recent technical advances are en

• AAI is working to bring West Sak o
217 

MAP<:O PETROLEUM INC 

Statement of 

W. Jeffrey Hart 

President 

MAPCO Petroleum Inc. 

Before the 

Committee on Resources 

United States House of Representatives 

on 

The Leasing of the Coastal Plain of the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

August 16, 1995 

1100 SOUTH EW.TIMORE NENUE POST OFFICE BOX 145 TU~. OKLAHOMA 74101-o&46 {t18) 581·1100 
218 

MAPC:O PETROLEUM IN(. 

As president of a company that refines and markets American petroleum 

products, I respectfully submit this statement on behalf of the over 400 employees in 

Alaska and 2,700 employees nationwide which comprise MAPCO PETROLEUM Inc. 

Our company owns and operates two refineries, one in Nonh Pole, Alaska, and 

one in Memphis, Tennessee, and over 250 retail gasoline convenience stores in Alaska 

and the Southeastern United States. We fully understand the imponance of 

increasing domestic energy production and suppon the exploration and development 

of oil and gas resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). We believe, 

like many others, that this area in nonhero Alaska can retain its environmental 

integrity while yielding to progress and sensibility. 

For far too long and at too great a price, our nation has depended on foreign 

oil. Even more troubling, the trend is not only continuing, it's growing and at an 

alarming rate. The results are obvious • a declining number of good jobs for American 

workers, pipelines like the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System that could eventually run dry, 

and a state of national security that depends on events in the Middle East. It's time 

for this to change and an imponant pan of the answer is found in the domestic energy 

production which ANWR can provide. 

In this fertile coastal plain lies the hope of opponunity, a potential economic 

stimulus for the country and for our national energy infrastructure. According to 

knowledgeable sources, including government estimates, access could mean hundreds 

of thousands of new jobs for skilled workers, new sources of revenue for Alaska and 

federal deficit reduction, stable volumes for pipeline shippers, and security for the 

future. 
219 

But we must act now if~ anl to rc:aliz~ th~ results that have been forecast and 

~by so many. By waiting, we risk losing a window of opportunity~~ 

tomorrow's hopes depend on today's discoveries. 

Deemed th~ Last Frontier, Alaska and its North Slope hold the key to our 

energy future and the jobs to fuel our economy. I apprc:date this chance to shanl 

MAPCO's views and encourage you to support legislation that opens the coastal plain 

of ANWR to safe exploration. It's the right thing to do ~use America benefits. 
STATEMENT 

OF THE 

AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE 

BEFORE THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES 

AUGUST 3, 1995 

This is the statement of the American Petroleum 

Institute, which represents more than 300 companies involved 

in all aspects of the oil and natural gas industry 

including exploration, production, transportation, refining and marketing. 

The American Petroleum Institute (API) believes that 

Congress should act now to open the coastal plain of the Arc~ic National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and 

development. Opening the coastal plain offers the best 

single opportunity to increase significantly domestic oil 

production. Failure to act could lead to an early shut-down 

of the Trans Alaska Pipeline and the loss of potentially enormous domestic oil reserves. Moreover, a quarter century 

of oil operations on Alaska's North Slope has shown that oil 

exploration and development on the coastal plain would be 

fully compatible with arctic wildlife and environment. 

Exploration and development on the coastal plain offer 

four substantial benefits to the American people. The first 

is a real boost to domestic oil production. There could be 

vast amounts of oil in ANWR's coastal plain." The U.S. 

Department of the Interior has estimated that there is a 46 

percent chance of discovering economically recoverable oil 

in the coastal plain-- possibly as much as 9.2 billion 

barrels. These are extraordinarily good odds, since only one out of every 50 wells drilled in unexplored areas has 

resulted in a major discovery of a million or more barrels 

of oil or an equivalent amount of natural gas. An analysis by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists contends 

that the 9.2 billion barrel estimate is conservative and 

that ANWR could hold 15 billion barrels of recoverable oil, 

larger than the nation's largest oil field, Prudhoe Bay, 

just 70 miles to the west. ANWR's oil would help replace declining production from existing Alaskan fields that now provide 25 percent of U.S. domestic oil production. 

Second, ANWR offers significant economic benefits for 

the United States. In 1987, the U.S. Department of the 

Interior stated that net national economic benefits from 

ANWR development could reach $325 billion. While these 

estimates will vary with the assumptions used, it is likely 

1 
221 

that, in any case, net economic benefits would be in the 

hundreds of billions of dollars. Development of the North 

Slope oil fields has already contributed more than $300 

billion to the U.S. economy. Assuming reserves of 15 

billion barrels, production in ANWR could last for 25 years, 

peaking at about 2 million barrels a day. That would be 

nearly 33 percent of the current daily U.S. production. A 

production level of 2 million barrels a day would mean that 

the coastal plain was one of the world's most productive 

fields. were it a country, the coastal plain would rank 

among the'top eight oil-producing countries in the world. 

Third, ANWR offers a significant source of income for 

the federal government, no insignificant benefit at a time 

of tight budgets. Depending on the world price of oil, the 

U.S. Treasury could count on an influx of several billion 

dollars a year in revenues from lease sales and production 

royalties from ANWR oil. Revenues from the ANWR lease sale 

would be paid up front, providing funds to help reduce the 

federal budget deficit in the short term. 

Fourth, ANWR offers a significant source of income for 

the government and people of Alaska. The petroleum industry 

is already the largest source of income for Alaska. The 

industry provides 35 cents out of every dollar produced in 

Alaska and 78 cents out of every dollar that finances 

Alaska's state government. 

Critics cite certain environmental disadvantages, which 

have b~en blown out of proportion. Three facts will keep 

this proposed activity in proportion. First, exploration 

and development of ANWR will take up only a small fraction 

of its millions of acres. Oil operations in ANWR would take 

place on a small portion of the coastal plain. The coastal 

plain covers about 1.5 million acres, which is only about 8 

percent of ANWR's total area. But the actual operations 

would take up about 19 square miles, or less than one percent of the coastal plain, and less than one-tenth of one percent of the full ANWR. Nineteen square miles are roughly equivalent to the size of Washington, D.C.'s Dulles Airport. 

(ANWR itself is about the size of South Carolina.) 

Second, oil development will not adversely affect the 

area's wildlife. Oil field activities already conducted on the North Slope have not had any significantly adverse 

impact on the population size of any fish or wildlife 

species, including caribou. In fact, the caribou have 

thrived. The Central Arctic Herd, which grazes in the 

Prudhoe Bay oil field, now numbers more than 23,000. That 

2 
222 

is eight times larger than when oil development first began 

in the Prudhoe Bay area in the early 1970s. The oil 

companies have worked with federal, state and local 

authorities to make sure their structures permit such 

wildlife movements as caribou migration. Other forms of 

wildlife, such as bears and wolves, use the projected ANWR 

site only infrequently and would not be affected by oil 

development. For example, not a single grizzly bear has ever been killed in the North Slope oil fields in the course of routine, operations. 

Third, oil operations cause only a temporary loss of a very small amount of habitat. Federal law mandates that the 

environment must be protected during oil and gas development 

anywhere on federal lands. Once oil operations are completed, companies are required to remove all of their 

equipment and restore the land as closely as possible to its 

natural state. The oil industry is perfecting reclamation 

and rehabilitation of exploration sites in the Prudhoe Bay 

field. Since 1990, more than 61,000 cubic yards of gravel 

have been removed from 912 sites, and more than 4.1 million 

square feet of gravelled tundra have been cleaned, as part 

of a gravelled-tundra rehabilitation project. As part of a 10-year revegetation project, seed from 33 native plant 

species was harvested in 1989 and planted in 144 plots in 

1990 to evaluate methods of modifying gravel pads to 

encourage natural revegetation. 

To sacrifice this potentially huge source of domestic 

oil production for the insubstantial reasons offered by some envirohmentalists would be a grave mistake. It would be 

compounded by the fact that such a decision could adversely 

affect the feasibility of other North Slope development, even at known locations. A 1991 study by the U.S. 

Department of Energy says that technology and economics make 

it difficult or impossible to operate the Trans Alaska 

Pipeline at flow rates of less than 300,000 barrels per day. 

Unless new fields can be developed to maintain such a rate 

of flow, the pipeline will shut down, probably irreversibly, 

leaving large amounts of recoverable oil behind. Former 

Energy Secretary James Watkins argued that such a shutdown 

"may be tantamount to permanent shut-in of the entire 

region." In an area like ANWR, it could take at least 10-12 

years to begin production after the initial lease sales. So an early sale could play a significant role in forestalling 

such a wasteful and premature shutdown. 

To summarize the industry's positlon: the potential 

benefits of oil development in ANWR are enormous; the 

3 
potential environmental effects of such development would be 

negligible, and for the most part temporary; and the failure 

to lease ANWR could have an adverse and irreversible effect on current and future petroleum production in Alaska. We 

believe ANWR should be opened to oil and gas exploration now. 

* * * 

4 
Mr. Chairman. 

224 

Written Testimony 

to the 

House Committee on Resources 

by 

John C. Morgan, President 

BPX (Alaska) Inc. 

August 1, 1995 

BP strongly supports all efforts to secure the opening for the coastal 

plain of ANWR for exploration and development. The coastal plain of ANWR is an 

ex1ension of a demonstrated, global scale hydrocarbon province. Various estimates 

have defined potential of several billions of barrels of resources. Because of the long 

lead times of new field development, we need to begin to explore now to assure the 

potential of ANWR can help supply the energy needs of the United States ear1y in the 

nex1 century. 

This testimony highlights the improvements in oil field technology that 

have been made on the North Slope of Alaska and how those improvements will 

minimize the impact of future development. The oil industry can explore and develop 

ANWR safely and environmentally responsibly. 

BP is the largest producer of oil in the United States because of our 

North Slope production. We operate or have interests in all seven producing fields on 

the North Slope, which account for nearly a quarter of the oil currently produced in the 

United States. We are actively developing new production within these fields and 

hope to develop additional fields in the near future. 

During more than four decades of exploration and development activities 

on the North Slope, BP and other Alaskan producers have demonstrated our 

commitment to minimizing the environmental impacts of our operations, to maximizing 

production through ongoing investment and new technology, and to continuously 

improving our performance. We're always searching for new and better ways to 

conduct our business. 

Reducing the Impact of Development 

I would like to discuss how North Slope oil and gas development 

technology has evolved over the past two decades and how this has enabled us to 

significantly simplify our facilities and operations, reduce the cost of development and 

simultaneously reduce environmental impacts of development. This process is 

ongoing, and new fields such as Badami and Northstar that are being considered for 

development will use the best current and new technology to assure technical 

integrity and minimize environmental impact. 

We expect that lessons the industry has learned since Prudhoe Bay 

development began in the ear1y 1970s will enable us to significantly reduce the 

impacts of our future activities while maximizing the region's contribution to energy 
225 

supplies. Strides that we have taken in the past two decades have been both good 

business and good for the environment. 

Research by industry, government and independent parties has shown 

that environmental consequences of oil development on the North Slope have been 

minimal. Long-term studies help us to determine how wildlife and oil development can 

coexist. They target every facet of our operations from exploration through closure. 

A number of advances in development and exploration technology have 

enabled us to significantly reduce the impact and enhance the economics of oil 

activities on the North Slope. Among them are: 

Elimination of surface storage, or •reserve" pits for disposal of drilling 

wastes; 

Closer spacing of wells on a gravel drilling pad; 

Extended-reach drilling, enabling recovery of oil reserves as far as 3 

miles away from a single surface location where wells are clustered; 

Simplifying facilities in order to make them more space- and costefficient, including consolidating processing facilities with living quarters; 

Using ice, instead of gravel roads for pipeline installation and other 

construction activities so they'll melt in spring, leaving little trace; 

Using ice roads and pads for exploratory drilling, and conducting land 

seismic operations on snow-covered tundra, again leaving little trace. 

In the past, exploration drilling was conducted from gravel pads and 

sometimes required gravel air strips for support. Today, all exploration work is 

conducted from ice pads and ice air strips, which leave virtually no impact on the 

tundra when they melt. 

What of the Future 

Two techniques new to the North Slope are under consideration as we 

endeavor to find ways to ecor.omica!ly develop the Badami discov.:l;y, lying about 30 

miles east of Prudhoe Bay. These are a buried, chilled pipeline and no acqess road 

from existing oil field infrastructure to the West. These methods would significantly 

further reduce development costs and environmental impacts, and we believe they 

are both feasible and economic for Badami. They may or may not be applicable for 

other new developments. 

Well Pild Evolution 

In the past 25 years there has been roughly a 70% reduction in the size 

of an average North Slope drilling pad (figure 1 ). The same number of wells that 

required a 20-acre gravel pad in the 1970s can now be drilled from a pad covering 

about 5 acres. 
226 

This has resulted primarily from major changes in well spacing, the 

disposal of drilling wastes and the size and complexity of production facilities. Drilling 

technology has advanced to the point where we can space wells as close as 1 0 feet 

apart, and 15 feet is common. In the 1970s, Prudhoe Bay wells were spaced 

approximately 1 00 feet apart. 

We've also eliminated the use of surface reserve pits to store drilling 

wastes. Instead, rock cuttings and the spend drilling mud are washed and ground into 

a slurry, then injected into a confining geologic zone more than 3,000 feet beneath the 

surface. No surface disposal of drilling wastes are expected on future North Slope 

projects along the Arctic coast. 

Extended Reach Qr!lllng Technology 

Advances in directional or extended reach drilling (ERD) technology also 

have enhanced oil recovery efforts while reducing surface impacts. When Prudhoe 

Bay began production in the mid-1970s, we were able to deviate about a mile-and-ahalf, horizontally, from a well's surface location. 

Today, extended reach drilling is enabling us to tap accumulations 

nearly three miles offshore from an onshore location at our Niakuk field, and we 

expect to extend our reach to nearly four miles in the near future. Such distances 

already have been achieved at a BP development in southern England, and we have 

been transferring that technology to our North Slope operations. 

Percent of Operating Area directly Involved in oevetopment 

As a result of this evolution in development techniques, gravel 

placements on the tundra have been significantly reduced (figure 2). Approximately 

5,000 acres, or roughly 2% of the surface area of the Prudhoe Bay Field, are covered 

by gravel. If we were to develop Prudhoe Bay today, and incorporate all the lessons 

we've learned in two decades of North Slope development, gravel would cover less 

than 2,000 acres·· more than a SO% reduction. 

Less than 1% of the surface is affected by development in the Kuparuk 

Field to the West of Prudhoe Bay, and Badami development would have an impact on 

less than half of 1 o/o of the surface area. These reductions have cut costs as well as 

minimizing environmental impact, and they would be reflected in any future North 

Slope development activity. 

Summary 

BP and the industry continue to be on the forefront of technology. We 

will get the most from existing fields and we feel confident that we have the ability and 

will to apply those technologies to other areas of Alaska's North Slope. We are 

committed to continuing to simplify our developments and operations, to reducing the 

cost of those developments and simultaneously reduce and minimize their 

environmental impact. 
227 

TESTIMONY ON: 

!XPLOltATJON AND DEVELOPMENT OP THB 

ARCTIC OIL &BSBR.VI SiCTION 

OPANWR. 

AWI<A STATE SENATE PRESIDENT 

DRU!PEARCE 

ON D&HALP OP TilE ALASKA STAT! S!NA 1"8 

AND 

THE ALASKA &TAT! HOUSB OP RBPRBSBNATATMiS 

BEFORE THE US HOUSE OF REPR£SBNTATIVES 

IBSOUICES COMMmEE 

AUCUS1' 3, 1995 
228 

Mr Cl\ainurt lftd 1M1nbe11 of h coaunfttel, I• Slnatcr Dnae ~ 

Pretident of the Aluka SID Staate. I 1m P'O"fdlns ll!ltllllclly to you aa 

behalf of tlw AIMb Stat Sallte 11\d Statt Maull on.cplcntiCft ll1d 

devtlopmtntoftlw ArdtcalltiMrvela the ArctlcNalloNI Wiki1Ue Kefupin~ 

Pint, I would like to h1dicate the ovenvWmfns 1Upp01t in.Alllb for 

exploration ll1.d dewlopment of thll-, which CfX'IIMI wllely eet llide 

Jn.1980. t.ms tht Nit oil prolpiCtln tlw ~ sw.. 

During the put legialatin Rllion. the AJub leplllunt cftce aaam 

affirmed our support by paa1rts re10lution~ with ftllr Wlll\brloul votes. 

'I1teae reaoluttonurt irldudtd m· the doc:uznenll we have provided to yOU: 

RaoluttON in IUpport haw al10 been ..... by tho Alub Munici~ 

LtJtasue, the A1u'ka Ptcltalion of Native~, the Af.b AJIL.OO and the 

I<Utovic VDiep Corporation repr-dins tlw lOl'llnatlve f81iden.tl. 

Jn adclitloa, lilt ll\Oath, a tlatlwi4e pubUc opUUCII\ poll WM coaductecl in 

Alllka which showed~ of Alakialfavonclexplcalion ancJ 

development of the Arc:lic Oil Rllerft... "' .... Ulldlddad. 

Why il there auch overwheJming IUpfD't'l Tbtn art two buic 1'1110111. 

Pin\. Alubna have had extalve exprtmc:e With oil devtloplneat and 

we know that with proper c:onlroll, tt can be lddend with m1nimal 

clilnapticm of the en~l 

Seccnd. revenuealrom. pelMleum production fund the majority of our 

state proaram.a for tducatlcxl, publfc: llfety, public J;\ellth, aad the 

errvir'cxlmeftl • 
229 

Why Jl it that we teem to care 10 mw:h lbaut aurtnde clekit With Jlplll and yet lpxe our abnolt: equal trldt deldt In~ prcxluc:tl? JJ it 

becau. WI pnflr to attack ICIIM ou.taideiNill)' rather thin c:cafront a 

c:lomtttlc illue whk:hit dlll'ly our own rellpCI1Ilbillt 

Alub ia not the only state a.t filii this way. We have jaiMd Jn a 

co.Jition clllJicl 11wl!MrsJ' O:Mmd1 With 9 olhlr major ....raY~ 

stab!!lindudinS Alabama, Arkauu, Cclan.clo, t.ou.lliaDa, Mialllll.ppl, 

N.w Uaioo, OldUDina,Tecu, llkl Wyomlna. repl'tlelttirla a ot 

eMI'8Y prociuction in the Ualbld Stata. 

The Plu!rJy Coundlltlppodl tht~udlon of allloau of 

tne1'8Y 11\dudiftS lltemative fue1t IIICl Uo IUppad:l cot.-vation 

meuune. GIYM that petroleum llill antitut.. 6M' ol--sY \111811 Jn 

the UmW Statel (401 ail mt• sa), a JX'08l'ID' to~ dOIIMitic: 

peb:oltum podudion untt1 we can llllb a tl'lnlition to otla fuelt only mabl c:ornm.cm Rl'lll. 
230 

The Energy Coundlltallltupporta Jndiral JII'OII'III' lor~ 

~tulll prod~ il\ Alnlaka inc(~ leaMIID f'ldallandl, a tax 

~~ructure whim crtAt~~lnc:enllvel a explaratloft lftlloaptun~ ta 

revenuee in the production ph.ue, ancla rtiiONiblt npJatory and · pmnlttma .Wc:ture. . 

Within this contaxt, the Atctic 011 ~ reprtllldla tremendout 

opportunity for America. Thele opportunlti•·a epellecl out in a 

eon,re.lonal Reeemh Senlce report for Caacr- entitled '1be Arctic 

Nalional Wlldllfe Refup" dated Aupst 30 1993 m1 updated July 21-1995. 

I would l'fCOJ!\D\eftd thl1 report to all of you lor a mmprthtnalw 

cleac:ription of thl iBBUtl which Congnl8 will adctr.a on this illut: 

Althoush the Arctic Oil Reaerve camotalaoe make up Cor U.S. Emqy im~ it mn make aiUbltantial CIOI\trlbutlon. t1w Conp!lllONl 

Rliearch StrviCII report ltatel that . . 

"Bstimatea of unUcoverecl tcoftOinicaJJy recoverable reeervea f1113t 

from lae than 1 billion bmcle to more than 9 bWion blrrell of petroleum." 

" .... lf tc:cmomic:all~blt oil il founcl, tM 11\UIU'IIOurc» lltimal8 

it about 3 A1 billion 1. 'I'hillllimate woulcllnnllate to a procludion 

pnk of about 600,000 bmtls per day." 

Tht report continua: " ... .ANWR C!OU1d mnlribute to the Nlance of tnwle. 

Kepladng 600,000 bamtll of cil impcll1l plf day at 516 .40/tmml (a May 

1993 price) would recluc:e the lrlcle cle&c:Ct by about S3 :J billion pet year." 

Mt 0\llrmari, we have heard the argummt put lmwud that thil would 

only bt 200 days supply of oil for lba country. Pnnkly in my 1N1ftY yean of 

.,w>llc eemce u .n eiectecl of&dal, this il 01\1 of the D\Oit dcliculoua 

argwnenta i have ever heard. 

If you UMd the IWI\Ilo&ic you would uy that PrudhoiBbay would only 

pnwldt 5MJ dayt oD eupply a the nation. Prudhot Bay repn!M'tl 

~tely ~ of 111\trica't oil production far tbl J*tl7 ylll'llftd hU pneratecl $21 bUlion for the US treuu~y. (A1uka "D~J*'t~Dent of 

Kavenue e&timatet). Jmpartina the 1111\1111\ount of all paduceclto fir at 

Pludhot Bay would haw"addecl OVIr $160 billion to America'• trade detlcit. 
231 

Ale they..,.,. that Pnaclhot Bay ltiDIIpi8e:lnt tnellbaalcl Dmll'- bMD4~? . 

Thil effort to trlvJallzt PQtlnlil1 Ardlc· aJ a...... pro4uc.tiaa It toi:IJly 

W.. ..S ..._. • ..,. 1M Corcrnii:OIIIl--=Servk» l'll*t putad:U 

ieeuein a much more _..c ~lpldim 

"'f tht low l'll'll' of DOI'IIItimatl (OM S.tcl of 1111 than oae bdUon Nrn~~> • cornc:t, ~ ao , ... o1 procluctkm cou1c1 ~am aut toy-.n after drUJlas 1t 1.\dhodzed. ~ Ub1y ... .mn~aetu of Yar)'lna 11z11 

procluc:lns ~equentiaUy over SO yan ar more: 

wea what o1 tht othtt :anon Nl'iOUI upm•ta apiNt development? Coftc:lmil1l wi1cWie habitat-.., the Depl1'tlnellt of lrdldot con4uded A 

&ve year etudy 01\ the Arctic Coutlll'tlin area Cllled the "1002 reporr. Jolv.\ Turner, Dktdor, tlS Jlilh ml WUdlUe Slrvlal 1 Deptttment of 

Interim tatl&ecl befccre tht Submmm.tttee on Pil1mtl and Wfidlifl 

O:nervatiCII\ and lbt llnvilaunlftt, US Houle of Repeeentativee 01\ May 

1,1991: 

'1'be Impact...,... pndic:tllll that apknllon and diWlopmlnt cldllirta ac:tlvitl• would s~n~nt~ only lllbvlr or M.Riilible dtctl 01\ all wil~ ~ 01\ tht 1002-.. .. w ~ Thii ..,.._been bome out l:Jy our ac::Nil ecperience in prudhoe bay. 

The DUlin area of c:onam sene to be tht porcupil\e caribou herd. 

Fortunately, we haw 101M na1 data c:m caribou ll1d o1l field developiMJlt 

in Prudhoe Bay. Over the 20 )'111'1 of oil•~Ye)qpment there, the eeNra1 

lfdic aribou Mrd hal lncnuecl by Oftt 6001. 

Can'lxm m:e lldually l'llallvelf ~ttw to humas\ ldi'Vity unl• it il 

huntifta aeuon and you artlbOOtll\8 at tha. At the extnme met whole 

hetda of them have been domeattcatid. mel tencleclln A.lub, Ruella and. 

Canada. However, at Prudhoe Bay, company :poUcJ. are dtliped to 

minimize hwnln amtact with auibou. Pcaealoa of ar.rm. and huntJna 

anlb.1dly prohJblted. 
232 

So what II the l'llllJJiue ha? 1be O:JnsreiiiCNII••II'Ch SWYICI npart «ll'ftdlyltltl!l: • 

'To wmntand the CIIXdi09fiiJ IUR'OUIIdiiJa tbt l'lfup dtlblle, It II 

Important to undlllbmd t1ult ..... who wllh to ptftiK'It ~ ... 

not blllns their ltiUDlii'III.......,Oycm ~ lllta lw pollution . rilkl ..• " . . 

"Ally but the mOlt lnnliby iatzulioal would In thalrvlew, damlp tM 

'child~ 1e111e of wond•' they .. the 11ft •lnttl11ifta. 11\ua, IY9A If a 

number of m.tiiU1'II ofbicic.tiwnlty wtN to NIMin etablt h\ the (Ke of 

d~tnt, tram their I*Jpldive, the peace ol the 1r11 u a pike 

where allrpr truth may \e IOupt would be llliouady axmpted." 

"Mon!ovvr, tlte mere Jmowlldp that a priltiM pJaee edltl whether one 

tM!r vlllta it, ~ bt iDlportaftt to tbale whO ~IW the debate II\ tlit Ji&ht. • 

Bnclquote 

I wtU law it~ to the alfiUI'Iittu to-thtl value to our utton of 

maintllnlns thMe fJpl of lafttallilt. Prom Alub'l vi~ our biptt 

objection to tht• whole approach it that it cleait1 the exiltmce of the 

people of Alaab, partic:Wizly tbt Imaplat of the north elope who have Uvcd 

In the ANWR lrU for thoulanclt oE yan. . · 

In Alub, we llw Vll'Y d0111D tM III\'Vilanlftlf To pi.'Oil'L6bt h idell of 

people outlide the tmrin:nrtlnt in aoJute "'wilcc.emMM" repreeenf:l to uaa 

--of .U.natlorl from ftllban by people in urbtmize4 ... of tba u.s. 

which Is 10 deep that we actually • it •• form of IDI!Ida1 Ulne81. 

s.yonct thil aiatlntill approacb, other factors &leo come 11\to play 

induclh\g the fatt that A1:IWR is 1 D'llljCII' funclralaq t.aelor 

emircmmentll orgam:ationa. "Bverythlna II loin& to be ldll.t and 

datroy8\1- pleaee lt11d DlOl'U!)'·" 

And t:hil dilc.onnlclld viiW llldl to 1011\1 Vflt'/ per9ene outc:cm-. . nil 

wry frullratin& for ue Mr OwUrman, to 11e our Vice PriiUimt pmmotlna oilllelcl clnelopm.mt In thel.ui!Mt lldic when emrkonmeatal pndicee 

are 1 ditalter, wh!le at the -.ne time IIJIUing IQIIlnst all fWd 

diMJiopmmttn tlw Am~ ll'dk!tn AlM1cA wl.rt-. have tlw wp.t envlroiunefttalltaftdardl ift the wodd. 
233 

Althaup thil may ful&lla politicll CDIIIIIIibriellt, It nbl8blalutely no 

IC'III u a natlonll1'01lcy. Wtlaak b:wiucl to the day when our aattca wWM:tulllytlklprfdtmour~~ · 

Mr Olairmln, wt an con8clmt that ~eum exploraUan IJld 

ptocluctlon em be ..rety canduderl wttldrt the Ardleal ~ .... of 

ANWJ.. Jl the Je&~Mincludellltet l'ldlmltlol'l Jazwut~•IUCh u we have 

tnduded In our lltte.le.- an prudhoe bay, tMre sftouf4 be aa permanent 

loll ot habitat from thil development. . 

Reeponaibly deve~opb, the ArcUc on ~esene muld provide llptficant revenue~ to the t.darat u.ury, reduce our fzacte defiCit and re1iabce m 

t'orltp cilltld provide jobl to AlntriCIDI. We uqe thie c:ommittlle and aU 

of~ to move forward with •leMlna proanm whim wm ful811 the 

potenti.ll which the Arctic Oil Rleer:ve ........ 
CARIBOU ENTERPRISES 

DEBBIE Al'!D Dl!l'll'll$ !'IlLLER 

1446 Han• Way 

Falrl>aokll. AK 99709 (907) 479·21119 

PhotojourneHots Contract filming 

Aerial photography 

Air till! 

.............. At ...... c ... , till?l .. a ... <W .... a ........ August 14, 1995 

Representative Don Young, Chairman 

House Resources Committee u.s. House of ~epresentatives 

Rayburn Building, Room 2331 

washington D.C. 20515 

Dear Representative Young and committee members, 

Enclosed is a copy of my August 2 testimony before the 

Senate Energy and Natural Resource Committee hearing on the 

proposed budget measure that would allow oil leasing within th~ 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain. Having spent a large portion of time in the Arctic Refuge over the past 20 

years. !'m opposed to any development on the coastal plain. Petroleum development would destroy the wilderness values of the 

area, and displace or reduce fish and wildlife populations in the area. Such impacts were well documented in the 1987 1002 Report 

to Congress by the Dept. of Interior, and development activities 

would be contrary to the purposes of why the Arctic Refuge was established. 

I urge you to strike the Arctic Refuge budget provision and 

consider other offsets and budget reductions. Please enter my August 2 testimony into the record for your August 3 hearing. In 

summary these are the key reasons why we shouldn't allow 

development: 

* The extraordinary wilderness and wildlife values of the 

Arctic Refuge outweigh any monetary gain from development. Proposed development would destroy the wilderness values of the 

area, and displace or reduce fish and wildlife populations; 

* The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is the only 

coastal zone that is protected within a conservation unit in the 

Arctic; the rest of Alaska's North Slope and millions of offshore acres are available for current or future oil exploration and 

development (roughly 90\ of everything north of the Srooks 

Rangel; 

* There are lands with moderate to high hydrocarbon 

potential in the immediate Prudhoe Bay/Kuparuk area, with 

existing infrastructure. The State of Alaska and the North Slope Borough have plenty of opportunity to explore or develop these 

adjacent lands. There is absolutely no reason to invade the 

Arctic Refuge. 

of words, Wings. and wilderness 
235 

* Energy security arguments have faded. Does it make 

sense to lift the oil export ban, open our wildest and most 

wildlife-r-ich refuge •. and send its oil (if any) to Asia? 

* The Gwich'in people of Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest 

Territories, and the Canadian government are united in their 

opposition to development of the calving grounds of the Porcupine caribou herd. 

Representative Young, as a 20-year Alaska resident, and a person who has written two books on the natural and political 

history of the Arctic Refuge, there is no justification for 

developing the coastal plain of the refuge. The coastal plain is 

the most biologically productive area of the entire refuge. It 

is an integral part of the wilderness setting, and can't be 

developed without degrading the region. The Arctic Refuge is 9ne 

of few wild places left on earth that should be left in its 

natural state. 

If there were no other alternatives, if oil was our only source of energy, if there were no other places on earth for 

multi-national corporations to explore for oil, then one might 

argue that there is justification for selling off the coastal 

plain. But this is simply not the case. We can make many other 

wiser choices. 

It is sad that the Alaska delegation, our state legislature, 

and our governor, are so tied to oil development, that they are overlooking the values of this magnificent area. We must leave 

the Arctic Refuge in its whole, wild state for our children and 

for the great diversity of wildlife. 

Our Alaska leadership should strive to achieve a balance 

between resource development and conservation of resources on Alaska's North Slope. We clearly have a balance, with the scales 

tipped toward oil development for all lands west of the Canning River. Shouldn't that be enough? 

Please think of future generations, and let's leave the 

Arctic Refuge alone. 

Sincerely, 

c5J..-~'"·t;.~. t-t,u .... Debbie s. Miller 
236 

STATEMENT OF 

DEBBIE S. MILLER, AUTHOR 

ON BEHALF OF 

THE ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE, ALASKA CENTER FOR THE 

ENVIRONMENT, AND THE NORTHERN ALASKA ENVIRONMENTAL 

CENTER 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

AUGUST 2, 1995 
237 

I. 

INTRODUCTION: 

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Senate Energy & Natural 

Resources Committee, my name is Debbie s. Miller and I reside in 

Fairbanks, Alaska. I''m a 20-year Alaska resident, and currently serve on the board of the Alaska Wilderness League. I'm a former 

elementary school teacher who once taught in the Athabaskan 

Gwich'in community of Arctic Village, located on the southern 

boundary of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. While teaching in Arctic Village in the mid-70s, my husband, Dennis, and I had a tremendous opportunity to learn about one of the most 

extraordinary Native American cultures in North America, and to 

explore the vast·Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

Over the course of the last 20 years Dennis and I have spent 

the majority of our summers exploring the Arctic Refuge. In 

1990, my book MIDNIGHT WILDERNESS: JOURNEYS IN ALASKA'S ARC!IC 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE was published by Sierra Club Books. This book 

is based on 13 years of wilderness explorations in the Arctic 

Refuge with much natural and political history information woven through the text. In 1993, I co-authored a photo-essay publication titled ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, published by 

Alaska Geographic. This quarterly captures the essence of the 

Arctic Refuge in words and beautiful color images. I would like 

to enter both of these publications into the hearing record as they will shed light on the debate of whether we should lease the 

coastal plain to oil development. 

Last year I authored a book for children, titled A CARIBOU 

JOURNEY. This book describes the life cycle'of the Porcupine 

Caribou Herd. In February I traveled to elementary schools in 

California and Oregon to share my book and slides of the Arctic 

Refuge with more than 4,000 children. The ·student·.:; were in awe of the wild animals that live in the Arctic Refuge and the 

·Arctic's magnificent beauty. After viewing polar bears, . thousands of caribou, grizzly bears and wolves, many of the 

students commented that they wished they could go to the Arctic 

Refuge someday. When I told the students that oil development was proposed on the coastal plain, the frequent response was lots 

of furrowed brows and puzzled faces, and comments such as "they shouldn't do that." 

I'm here today to share with you the unsurpassed wilderness 

and wildlife values of the coastal plain of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge, and to present arguments why oil development should be prohibited in this vitally important coastal region. I'm here to convince this committee, and other members of 

Congress, that the coastal plain of America's worldclass Arctic 

Refuge should remain as it is, for our children. 
238 

2. 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge encompasses 20 million acres of our nation's greatest wilderness along with a tremendous 

diversity of arctic and subarctic species. The Arctic Refuge is 

the nation's premier wildlife refuge, often referred to as the crown jewel of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Mr. Chairman, you and the Alaska delegation, have proposed 

to balance the budget by selling off the most vital portion of 

the Arctic Refuge - the 1.5 million acre coastal plain zone known as "1002" area. This coastal plain is the most productive and 

wildlife-rich stretch of tundra in the entire refuge. It 

represents our nation's only sliver of arctic coastline that is 

protected within·a conservation unit. In addition to slipping this proposed revenue measure into the federal budget, you and 

your allies mislead the public by referring to the 1002 area as the "Arctic Oil Reserve." 

Under the 19SO Alaska Lands Act, Section 1002 mandated 

extensive studies o! the coastal plain area including assessments 

of the fish and wildlife resources and the area's oil and gas 

potential. Sections 1002 and 1003 clearly state that only an Act 

of Congress can authorize oil and gas development in the Arctic 

Refuge. Given the comprehensive nature of these studies, the 

historical record of debate on this issue, and the level of 

national interest, it is unfair to Alaskans and Americans at 

large to legislate oil development via a line item in the budget. 

This type of backdoor politics was not the intent of Sections 

1002 and 1003 of the Lands Act. Any budget provision offering to 

balance the federal budget through the sale of assets in our national refuges or parks, without full public debate, completely undermines the purpose of why America set conservation areas aside in the first place. 

Last Friday, the House o! Representatives voted to eliminate 

many of the riders in H.R. 2099, riders that substantially weakened environmental protection laws without full public debate. Congressman Boehlert of New York noted that such riders 

"limited the ability of members to fully debate the issues and to 

vote their conscience." Mr. Chafrman, the Arctic Refuge revenue provision directly relates to the rider issue. Instead of 

drastic changes to environmental protection laws, you propose to 

sell off one of our greatest national treasures. Members of the 

Senate, and the public at large, are limited in fully addressing and considering this important issue which jeopardizes the future 

of America's premier wilderness. I urge this committee to 

withdraw any Arctic Refuge leasing revenues from the Budget Reconciliation. Any proposal to open the Arctic Refuge to 

development should be contained in a separate piece of 

legislation, and subject to fair and full debate. 
239 

J. 

WILDERNESS VALtrli:S OF THE COASTAL PLAIN 

The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is located in one of 

the greatest wilderness regions remaining on the planet. Of the 

established conservation units, the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge, together with Canada's Northern Yukon Park compose one of 

the largest protected blocks of wild habitat in the world. 

Located on the fringe of the North American continent, the 150-

mile long coastal plain represents the only protected stretch of 

arctic shoreline in America. The rest of Alaska's arctic coast, 

roughly 1,000 ·miles, has been set aside for past, current, and 

future oil exploration and development. 

My wilderness experiences on the coastal plain of the Arctic 

Refuge have been·rich and varied. I've visited the 1002 area on numerous occasions and consider those trips among the most 

memorable wilderness experiences of my life. I've hiked or kayaked along many of the coastal plain's exquisite and wild 

rivers: the Okpilak, Canning, Hulahula, Marsh Creek, Katakturuk, 

Jago, and Aichilik rivers. I've assisted the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service with the censusing of the Porcupine caribou 

herd, and worked with Ave Thayer, former manager of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge, on a wilderness assessment study of the 

coastal plain. 

The results of the wilderness assessment of the 1002 area are briefly summarized in the Dept. of Interior's 1987 Arctic 

Refuge Coastal Plain Resource Assessment. With the exception of 

two relatively small abandoned DEW Line sites on the coast, the 

entire 1002 area meets the criteria for wilderness. In 1988, Mr. 

Thayer testified before the u.s. House of Representatives 

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries and emphasized that 

there was no place for development within the boundaries of the 

Arctic Refuge. He recommended that the 1002 coastal plain area be formally designated as wilderness. 

Based on my personal experience on the coastal plain, Congress indeed should designate the coastal plain as wilderness. 

Having hiked through many wilderness areas in the Rockies, 

Sierra, Cascades, and Canadian Selkirks, I rank the Arctic Refuge 

above all others because of the pure nature of its wilderness, 

its magnificent beauty, and its remote location. 

The 25-35 mile wide coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is 

bordered by the highest glaciated peaks of the Brooks Range. 

There is no place on the North Slope of Alaska where the Brooks 

Range comes in such close proximity to the Arctic Ocean. The 

scenic vista of these steeply rising mountains from the open, flower-specked coastal plain is beau~iful and breathtaking. You can not take the coastal plain out of context with the 

surrounding mountains. As someone once said, "what are the 

mountains without the plain?" You cannot develop the coastal 

plain without affecting the wholeness of this northern 

wilderness. Just like if you shoot a man in the heart, the 
~0 

oullet makes a small hole, but what happens to the man? 

The mountainous area bordering the coastal plain is located 

in an 8-million acre zone that was classified as wilderness under 

the 1980 Alaska Lands Act. When standing on top of these peaks, one looks directly across the narrow band of coastal plain to the 

ice-packed Arctic Ocean, and beyond toward the North Pole. It is a far-reaching, sweeping view of the finest wilderness remaining 

in North America. One has the sense that you are standing on top of the world, in one of the few wild places remaining on earth 

where man only represents a tiny fraction of global ~ife. on the 

coastal plain the wandering herds of caribou, muskoxen and 

countless migratory birds outnumber man. No roads criss-cross 

the sweep of tundra, no pipelines. no buildings or industrialization, only one small rnupiat village with a few 

hundred people. 

Oil development on any scale would permanently destroy the 

wilderness character of Arctic Refuge coastal plain, and the 

aesthetics of existing classified wilderness that borders the 

coastal plain. The thought of a web of roads, pipelines, airfields, and buildings stretching across this truly wild 

expanse of tundra is unconscionable. 

Any major development would bring thousands of workers and a host of negative impacts associated with gravel extraction, waste 

disposal, oil spills, water pollution, and hundreds of miles of 

pipelines and roads. Nitrogen oxide emissions from the North 

Slope oil fields are the equivalent to that Washington D.C. The 

1995 Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry reports that 24,000 tons of 

methane are leaked into the atmosphere from the Prudhoe. Bay oil 

fields each year (see attachment 1) . 

The industry boasts that any oil development in the Arctic 

Refuge would .result in a much smaller footprint than Prudhoe Bay, claiming that only 13,000 acres would be disturbed. While that 

figure may sound small in relation to 1.5 million acres. one can clearly see by looking at the Prudhoe Bay complex that oil 

development is not consolidated. Its spiderweb growth pattern 

affects a far greater area. An estimated 12,000 acres of lost 

habitat are scattered across an ·aoo square mile zone of tundra 

through industry's extensive web of roads, pipelines, drilling pads and facilities. This estimate of disturbed habitat is less 

than what industry predicts !or habitat loss in the Arctic 

Refuge. 

As documented in the DOI's 1987 Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain 

Assessment, industry's footprint under a full leasing scenario 

would include numerous roads, hundreds of miles of pipeline, marine and salt water treatment facilities, large and small 

processing facilities, !our airfields, numerous drilling pads, and millions of cubic yards o! gravel. By its very nature oil 

development will destroy the wilderness values of the coastal 

plain, and in adjacent wilderness designated lands that border 
241 

the 1002 area. 

There are few wild places rema~n~ng on the earth that have 

extraordinary wilderness values similar to the Arctic Refuge. Only 4% of lands in America have been classified as wilderness, 

and most of r.hose lands are in Alaska. The Arctic Refuge is our nation's greatest wilderness asset given its size, remote 

location, sparse human population, and tremendous diversity of 

arctic habitats and wildlife. There is no greater wilderness in 

America. It should be the last place that we should consider 

drilling for oil. Instead of putting speculative Arctic Refuge 

lease sale revenues in our federal budget, you, as stewards, 

should preserve the coastal plain as wilderness to pass on to 

future generations. 

WII.DLIFE VALUES : 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the only conservation 

unit that protects a complete spectrum of arctic and subarcr.ic 

species and habitats. While the coastal plain represents only lOt or the Arctic Refuge, it is the most productive habitat 

offering refuge for the greatest diversity of species. The 

highest concentrations of animals such as caribou, snow geese, 

and denning polar bears occur on r.he coastal plain zone proposed 

for oil development. 

Where in America can one witness tens of thousands of 

caribou flowing by your tent? Where can one watch a polar bear 

feed on a whale's carcass, or a group of muskoxen encircle their 

young near a stalking wolf? Or a grizzly bear chase down a caribou in a pure wilderness setting? All of these wildlife 

spectacles r.ake place on the coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge. 

On one memorable trip to the Arctic Refuge, my one-year old 

daughter, Robin, tried to babble to a wolf that was walking by our camp along the Aichilik River. The puzzled wolf stopped and 

stared at her for what seemed a long time, then gradually moved 

up the valley. Robin was likely the first human toddler this 

wolf had ever seen. On another occasion I remember Robin 

bouncing up and down on the tundra pointing and squealing at 

thousands of caribou walking by us. Such wildlife experiences are treasured memories. I can only hope that future generations will have the same opportunities in the Arctic Refuge, without a maze of roads, pipelines and drilling rigs. · 

Each year the Porcupine caribou herd migrates to the coastal 

plain, their summer range and calving ground. For centuries 

these animals have etched countless trails across the tundra. 

Witnessing the aggregation of the Porcupine Herd on the coastal 

plain is a once-in-a-lifetime experie·nce. Each year as many as - 40,000 calves are born in the area proposed for development. In 

fact, between 1972 and 1995, the 1002 area had heavy calving concentrations for 21 out of 24 years. There have been some years 
U2 

'· 

when the caribou have·delivered their calves in Canada, or in 

other adjacent areas, but the vast majority of the cows and 

calves have always moved into the 1002 area after calving (see attachmen~ 2). It is clear that the coastal plain is a vital 

part of the ~orcupine Caribou Herd'S range. 

The coastal plain also supports the highest concentration of 

land denning polar bears in Alaska, several hundred muskoxen, 

arctic foxes and wolves, wolverines, grizzly bears, and about 135 

species of birds. Migratory birds from all continents fly to the 

Arctic Refuge ·each spring to nest and feed. Coastal. plain visitors include tundra swans from the Carolinas, snow geese from 

the Central Valley of California, and plovers and other 

shorebirds from South America. 

There is no conservation area in America that offers ~ home 

for such a great diversity and concentration of migratory species. I like to think of the coastal plain as a wildlife mecca for many species whose ancestors have made journeys to the 

Arctic for thousands of years. · 

The Athabaskan Gwich'in people of Arctic Village, and other 

villages in Alaska, the Yukon and Northwest Territories, have 

depended on the Porcupine caribou Herd for their subsistence and 

cultural needs for many thousands of years. They are united in 

their opposition to development on the coastal plain. Having lived with them and experienced their traditional culture, l am stunned that their voices have fallen on deaf ears. 

IS OIL DEVELOPMENT COMPATIBLE WITH THE PVRPOSES OF THE ~CTIC 

REFUGE? 

Under the 1980 Alaska Lands Act the first and most 

fundamental purpose for the establishment of the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge is to conserve fish and wildlife populations and 

their habitats in their natural diversity. As evidenced by 25 

years of development at Prudhoe Bay, the infrastructure and 

activities relating to oil development are not compatible with 

the Arctic Refuge's primary purpose. While wildlife and oil 

development may co-exist on the North Slope oil fields, there are many cases where animal populations and their habitats can no longer be found in their natural diversity. 

EXAMPLES OF NORTH SLOPI.OIL ~EVELOPMENT rMPACTS TO WILDLIFE: 

ll Female caribou of the Central Arctic Herd avcid oil field 

infrastructure, and are extremely sensitive to diaturb&nce during the calving season. Studies by the Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game 

indicate that caribou in the oil fi~lds are less productive than 

caribou living in undisturbed areas (see attachment 3). 
2) Alaska Dept. of Fish and Game studies reveal that about a dozen once-wild grizzlies have turned into garbage bears on the 

North Slope oil fields. There are 15 camps in the oilfields and 

Deadhorse. These range from a few small (less than 50 people) to 

large facilities (more than 500 people) . Camp dumpsters and the 

35-acre landfill at Deadhorse have become attractive food sources for bears (see attachment 4) . 

3) some species of birds, such as the American golden plover 

and the semi-palmated sandpiper, have as much as a SOt lower 

nesting density along the web of oil field roads (Bird Use of 

Prudhoe Bay Oil Field, 1992, Troy Ecological Research Associates, 

Anchorage) . 

4) Scavengers, such as gulls and arctic foxes, have 

increased dramatically in the vicinity of garbage dumps. What 

affect this increase might have on predator/prey relationships is 

unknown. Gulls and arctic foxes are known to prey upon bird eggs 

and chicks (USFWS, personal communication). 

5) The spillage of petroleum products, contaminants, and reserve pit fluids have degraded habitat in the North Slope oil 

fields. The Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (DEC) 

reports that 100,098 gallons of petroleum products were spilled 

in the oil fields in 1993; 24,968 gallons in 1994. Most clean-up 

monitoring of the oil spills is handled by phone because of 

related costs. 

6) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service studies report that snow in the Prudhoe Bay fields have high concentrations of heavy 

metals such as zinc, lead, copper and barium (USFWS, Northern 

Ecological Services, personal communication). 

These examples clearly document that oil development in the 

Arctic Refuge is clearly not compatible with the Arctic Refuge's 

purpose of conserving fish and wildlife populations in their 

natural diversity. 

The Alaska Lands Act included three other purposes for the 

establishment of the Arctic Refuge. In short they are to fulfill 

international treaty obligations·, such as the U.S. Porcupine 

Caribou Herd Treaty; to provide an opportunity for local 

residents to continue their subsistence way of life; and to 

protect water quality and its quantity within the refuge. 

The DOI's 1987 Coastal Plain Resource Assessment summarizes 

27 unavoidable impacts to the wildlife and habitat of the 1002 area under a full leasing scenario (see attachment 5) . These 

impacts further illustrate that oil development is clearly not 

compatible with the Arctic Refuge's four purposes. Some of the 

major impacts include: 
7. 

1) reduced use by caribou of up to 37\ of concentrated 

calving areas; 

2) destruction of vegetation, contamination of waters, or mortality ~f small food organisms due to an unknown number 

(possibly hundreds) .of petroleum and contaminant :.pills; 

Jl Loss of sub:oistence hunting opportunities throughout approximately one-half of the 1002 area, and possible reduction 

in subsistence .opportunities to communities outside the 1002 

area; 

4) Direct and indirect habitat losses for snow geese, 

muskoxen, grizzly and polar be.ars, and arctic grayling. 

It is vell documented in the 1002 report that opening the 

coa:otal plain of the Arctic Refuge to oil development will 

displace or reduce wildlife populations, cause direct and 

indirect loss of habitat, and bring a host of environmental 

problems from air and water pollution to oil spills. Activ.ities 

associated with oil development have no place in America's 

wildest refuge. It is·unaccepeahle to propose such grave and 

dra:otic impacts without full and free debate. 

r believe the recent lifting of the oil export ban clearly demonstrates that there is no pressing need to explore and 

develop the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Does it make sense to destroy the wilderness and disrupt the wildlife of our only Arctic Refuge so that we can send oil to Asia? 

The oil industry has asserted for years that there is a great necessity to open the Arctic Refuge for exploration and 

development because the Prudhoe Bay oil field is diminishing. 

Yet, North Slope production over the past decade has only slightly diminished and forecasts through the year 2010 are very favorable. In fact, in the four years since Congress last 

refused to open the Arctic Refuge, Alaska's Dept. of Revenue 

forecast for North Slope production for ehe year 2010 has more than doubled. 

Mr. Chairman, I was not present at the recent July 18th 

hearing on "Estimated Oil Reserves, Drilling and Operating Technology in Arctic Alaska," but I understand your committee was warned that North Slope production was likely to cease between 

2008 and 2014 without a boost from the Arctic Refuge. Lait month 

in Alaska we learned that Prudhoe Bay planning document• indicate 

that the major North Slope producers actually think Prudhoe Bay will be producing until 2040, as presented before the Alaska Oil 

and Gas Conservation Commission on May lG, 1995. 
245 

"!. 

At the same time.that a representative of the North Slope producers told your committee why he thought West Sa~ could not 

replace Prudhoe Bay, other oil companies with interests in that same field.have been touting West s~·s potential. For example, 

at a heavy oil conference in Calgary in June, SP representatives 

presented a paper describing the factors that could easily make 

West Sak an important commercial discovery (see attachment 6) . 

The report presents a very promising picture for the future 

production of the Schrader Bluff/West Sak/Ugnu reservoirs, 

estimated to hold 26 billion barrels of tar sands oil. New 

technology, such as coiled tubing, enhanced oil recovery techniques, and piggybacking on existing facilities, have helped 

to make these giant reservoirs more economical and attractive to 

producers. 

On June 29, in Anchorage, OXY USA told the Alaska Oil and 

Gas Policy Council that the potential of West Sak rivals that of 

the Arctic Refuge, with two significant differences. One, you don't have to invade the Arctic Refuge and build a linking 

pipeline, and two, the oil in question is already discovered, not 

hypothetical. occidental described, for example, how a five-year 

state royalty holiday could add more than 300 million barrels to 

the production forecasted from this field, which has been 

producing in modest quantities since 1991. 

I present this information because the West Sak formation is a sleeping giant. If the reason for invading the Arctic Refuge is to find oil, we've already found it near Prudhoe Bay. I 

respectfully suggest that you consider the information I've 

referred to from the Heavy Oil conference in Calgary in June, and 

from the Alaska Oil and Gas Policy Council in order to make a balanced assessment. 

0'1'Dll AREAS '1'0 EXPLOU 

The State o! Alaska currently has .1,037 active oil leases, 

approximately 3.4 million acres of onshore and offshore tracts. 

Nine lease sales have been proposed by the State of Alaska under 

their Five-Year Oil and Gas leasing Program. Five of these 

proposed sales are located on the North Slope and in the Beaufort 

Sea, and tracts to be considered amount to 4.7 million aeres. 

The North Slope lease sale 87, scheduled for 1998, consist's 

of 2 million acres of "moderate to high" hydrocarbon potential. 

These high potential lands border the National Petroleum Reserve 

and include the Kuparuk Uplands and the Colville River Delta, 

which is considered a high prospect area by industry. A portion of the sale is jointly owned by the State of ~aska and the 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. While still in a proposal 

state, this lease sale illustrates that there are other moderate 

and high potential exploratory areas in the immediate vicinity of 

the existing North Slope oil fields. 
246 

10. 

In summary, there is no need to invade the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge. There are many other lands that have been 

proposed for future exploration, and some with moderate to high potential. CUrrent projections tor North Slope oil development, without invading the·Arctic Refuge, are very favorable. 

ENERGY POI..ICY 

The 1992 Energy Act mandated that our country adopt a national energy strategy based on the principles of energy conservation, efficiency, renewables and alternatives. I! we reduce our dependence on the use of oil, this will preclude the 

need to develop the Arctic Refuge coastal plain. The fact that 

the Arctic Refuge development provision was removed from the 

energy bill prior to its passage. clea~y demonstrated that 

developing our only Arctic Refuge was not an acceptable plan for our long-term energy policy. 

Instead of raising the speed limit to 6S mph, we should 

lower it and conserve energy, particularly since more than half 

of our oil is used by the transportation sector. Aa was pointed 

out in 1987 testimony before your committee, increased energy efficiency and conservation is the best way to reduce our level 

of oil consumption. Reduced use o! oil will preclude future 

needs of exploring and developing special places like the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge. 

In conclusion, I urge this committee to withdraw the Arctic 

Refuge leasing provision from the Budget Reconciliation and 

consider other alternatives to balancing the budget. Selling off our nation's greatest wildlife refuge to help close the budget 

gap is an unprecedented travesty. The devastating ramifications 

from such a decision far outweigh any monetary gain. 

Congress should have the wisdom and vision to preserve a portion of the undisturbed Arctic for future generations of 

humans and wildlife. I hope that when our children grow up that 

they will still be able to visit the Arctic Refuge in its 

extraordinary wilderness state. Thank you for considering my 

testimony on this most important national issue. 
1101 founee:nrh Str~t. NW 

Suite l~OO 

Washtng10:n. DC 2-000'i 

Tekphcnc 201-682-9400 

fa.' lOl-682·1331 

247 

August 16, 1995 

The Honorable Don Young, O!air 

House Resources Committee 

Room 1324 Longwirth House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

RE: Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 

Dear Representative Young: 

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife's 118,106 members and supporters, we are 

submitting these comments for inclusion in the August 3, 1995 hearing record 

on leasing the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (Arctic 

Refuge) for oil and gas exploration and development. We are adamantly 

opposed to openl11g the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas development by any 

IDI!IIJlS. partlcolarly through the budget reconciliation process. 

The northeast comer of Alaska was first protected as the Arctic National 

Wildlife Range in 1960 for "its unique wildlife, wilderness, and recreational 

values. "

1 In 1980, the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act 

(ANILCA) doubled the area protected, renamed it as a wildlife refuge and 

designated 8 million acres of the original area as wilderness. Today, the 

Arctic Refuge is one of the largest wildlife refuges in the United States, 

covering 19 llll1lion acres of ice and tundra. Its stunning landscape is habitat 

to a diverse array of wildlife including, migratory birds, caribou, grizzly bears, 

Dall sheep, polar bears, and musk oxen. The nearby continental shelf 

provides the coastal waters with a rich nutrient base which in turn supports an 

unusually wide variety of marine mammals. 

The Arctic Refuge contains one of the most fragile and ecologically sensitive 

ecosystems in the world The harsh, forbidding climate leaves little flexibility 

for survival for its many inhabitants. The short growing season in the Arctic 

allows species that have been harmed little time for regeneration. The 

system's relatively short food chain means that the loss of one component can 

have disastrous consequences. In addition, as an adaptation to the climate, 

the inhabitants tend to have long life spans, which also makes species recovery 

difficult and lengthy. Human disrurbances could do tremendous harm to this 

delicately balanced ecosystem. Drilling for oil in the Arctic Refuge would 

aflect terrestrial animals through destruction of habitat by roads, pipelines and 

drilling pads. Roads and pipelines would fragment wildlife habitats restricting 

movement and population dynamics. 

1 Fred A Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, Public Land Order 2214, Establishing the 

Arctic National Wildlife Range, 1960. 
Arctic wildlife generally require large habitat ranges and occur in scattered numbers. In 

addition, roads are often accompanied by an increase in hunting and trapping in the 

adjacent areas. The largest impact would be on the 152,000 member Porcupine Caribou 

Herd which is the main food source for many predators including wolves, grizzly bears, 

and wolverines. Caribou are also central to the diet and culture of the Gwich'in people. 

Tens of millions of birds that migrate to the Arctic coastal plain each spring to nest in its 

wetlands would also be impacted by oil drilling activities. These birds travel from six 

continents from locations including the Chesapeake Bay, California, and East Coast 

states. Over 185 species of waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds have been observed in 

the Arctic Refuge including tundra swans, common eiders, arctic terns, and breeding 

brants. Last fall, more than 300,000 snow geese stopped to feed on the coastal plain 

before proceeding on their long migration to wintering grounds in the south. Biologists 

have found the geese extremely sensitive to human disturbance during this critical part 

of their life cycle. For all waterfowl species, oil drilling would disturb the nesting and 

foraging habitats as well as potentially have toxic effects. Of course, any declines .of 

these migratory birds in Alaska would affect populations in the lower 48 states. 

While the protection of all wildlife is important, Defenders is particularly concerned with 

the Arctic Refuge's polar bear and caribou populations. Polar bears inhabiting the U.S. 

Arctic are divided into two overlapping populations. The northern, or Beaufort Sea 

population is estimated to be 1,800 individuals. Individuals in this population spend 

most of their lives on pack ice well off shore from the coast of northern Alaska coming 

onshore in the early winter months to mate, den, and bear young. Maternity denning 

habitat is especially important to prolect because, as noted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS), this is ''where reproductive success can most easily be altered."' 

Pregnant female polar bears typically build maternity dens in October or November, give 

birth to one or two cubs in December, and remain inside the den until March or early 

April. During this period, the new born cubs depend on the den and their mother for 

protection. Successful rearing requires a relatively undisturbed denning environment. 

As noted in the FWS' just completed Polar Bear Habitat Conservation Strategy, the 

coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is known to be especially important polar bear 

denning habitat of the Beaufort Sea population of polar bears. In the Beaufort Sea, the 

FWS has found that 43 percent of radio collared pregnant females came on shore to den 

within the Arctic Refuge. 3 This represents a significantly higher concentration of polar 

bear dens than would be expected if dens were distributed evenly across the coast. 

Because polar bears exist in relatively small populations and have low reproductive rates 

(only a quarter of the female bears become pregnant in any given year), they are highly 

susceptible to even small decreases in population numbers. While Alaska's Beaufort Sea 

population of 1,800 polar bears appears to be stable, even small decreases in bear cub 

'FWS, Draft Conservation Plan for the Polar Bear, 17 (December, 1993) ("~") 

atl8 
249 

survival or increases in female mortality could be devastating. Further, in 1991 

congressional testimony, polar bear expert and Marine Mammal Commissioner Jack 

Lentfer noted: "Any new activity that adversely affects denning would likely decrease cub 

survival and thereby lower recruitment and cause the population to decline.'~ 

In addition to the harm caused by disrupting denning activities, oil and gas exploration 

activity may also disturb polar bear feeding and migration patterns. Polar bears may be 

harassed by aircraft, ships and other vehicles. Bears may be forced to avoid favored 

feeding areas and migration routes, or, alternatively, be attracted by the sights and smells 

of human activity, thus increasing the possibility of dangerous human-bear encounters. 

In addition, polar bear habitat can be also be damaged or destroyed by dumping, 

dredging, drilling, and construction of platforms, pipelines, roads, and support facilities. 

These disruptions would also affect the caribou of the Arctic Refuge. The coastal plain 

is vital calving ground to the Porcupine Caribou Herd. In fact, state biologists and the 

refuge manager just recently reported that 92 percent of calving by the Porcupine 

Caribou Herd was concentrated in the 1002 area this last spring. Oil drilling in tltis area 

would greatly disturb the calving process. Predators are common in the foothills to the 

south of the coastal plain, and relatively scarce on the coastal plain itself. The more 

time the calves can spend on the coastal plain the less likely they are to fall prey to 

predators. In addition, forage plants are more abundant and more digestible on the 

coastal plain, allowing for quicker growth of the calves. Oil drilling on the coastal plain 

could force the caribou up into predator territory and away from prime foraging habitat. 

Development in the Prudhoe Bay area has disrupted both calving and migration patterns 

of the Central Arctic Herd. If Prudhoe Bay is even a remote indication of what might 

occur in the coastal plain, then it is inevitable that there will be disruption in natural 

patterns of the Porcupine caribou. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game and the 

National Biological Service have recently concluded that the avoidance of, and fewer 

movements within the Prudhoe Bay complex by female caribou of the Central Arctic 

Herd are ostensibly in response to the dense network of production and support 

facilities, roads, and above ground pipelines, and the associated vehicular and human 

activity.' Likewise, caribou found near these production areas have an overall health 

condition substantially lower than normal. 

The wildlife of the Arctic Refuge that depend upon the coastal plain belong not just to 

Alaskans, or the United States. These wildlife species know no political boundaries. 

Alaskans share this wildlife with the other 49 states, with Canada and with the rest of 

the world. The Canadian Ambassador to the U.S., Raymond Chretien has recently 

spoken on this issue. In a letter to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee, he remarked that the plan to open the coastal plain could disrupt the 

4 J. Lentfer, Testimony Before the House Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and 

the Environment, June 11, 1991. 

3 David Cline, Testimony before the House Resources Committee. August 3, 1995. 
250 

migration of the caribou into Canada.' Migration routes of polar bears would similarly 

be disturbed by oil drilling. In the Beaufort Sea, polar bears make extensive east-west 

movements between the United States and Canada. Also of concern to the U.S. is the 

fact that iu !973 a treaty was signed by the U.S., Canada, Denmark, Norway, and the 

Soviet Union and was ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1976 that promised protection of 

polar bears. Article II of this treaty clearly states that "each contracting party shall take 

appropriate action to protect the ecosystems of which polar bears are a part ... "' 

Opening of the Arctic Refuge's coastal plain to oil and gas drilling would be a clear 

abrogation of this international commitment. 

The coastal plain of the Arctic Refuge is a precious resource that should not be wasted , 

for unsubstantiated and small oil reserves. Oil drilling activities are not compatible with 

the purposes of the Arctic Refuge and should never be allowed. 

}~;Jr, Linda Winter 

Program Associate 

Habitat Conservation Division 

Patricia Hankenson 

Intern 

Habitat Conservation Division 

6 Raymond Chretien, Canadian Ambassador to the United States, letter to the Senate Enexgy and 

Natural Resources Committee, July 31, 1995. 

7 International MAgreemcnt on Conservation of Polu Bears", Article II, 1973. 
251 

The Honorable Don Young 

Chairman 

Committee on Resources 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

August 2, 1995 

On behalf of the Seafarers International Union of North 

America. AFL..CIO, I wish to commend the committee for conducting 

an oversight hearing on the issue of opening the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for exploration and development. As we 

expressed in previous congressional hearings on this issue, the 

Seafarers International Union strongly supports legislation to permit oil 

exploration and development within the ANWR. Unfortunately, the 

Congress has delayed the decision over the last several years and 

valuable time to begin exploration has been lost. The Seafarers 

International Union believes that it is essential that the United States 

act affirmatively now in order to guarantee the Nation's future energy 

independence well into the next century. 

Developing oil reserves on ANWR's coastal plain will be one of 

the most important steps that this country can take to provide for a 

stable and secure America!) ~conomy. The oil embargo of 1973 and 

subsequent oil shortages demonstrate the effect of unsecure oil 

supplies on America's economy. The Persian Gulf conflict just a few 

years ago highlighted once again the uncertainty in the Middle East 

and the need for the United States to maintain its independence, 

whether it be through stable energy supplies or through the retention 

of a viable U.S.-flag merchant fleet. Development of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge would increase the Nation's secure energy 

supplies in the next few years and ensure increased energy 

independence for future generations. 

In addition to energy security, production of oil within the 

ANWR will be a major boost to the U.S.-flag maritime industry. Oil 

production on Alaska's North Slope presently employs nearly half the 

tanker tonnage in the United States. Since ANWR development will 

take more than a decade to reach its initial potential and Prudhoe Bay 

fields will decline in the coming years, authorizing ANWR production 

now will prevent further erosion of the all important U.S.-flag tanker 
The Honorable Don Young 

August 2, 1995 

252 

fleet. Any funher delay will only serve to idle the fleet. forcing vessels to be scrapped 

and thereby limiting the number of skilled mariners available to respond to the Nation's 

call in a future national emergency to man both the commercial fleet and the 

government's reserve fleet. 

The Seafaren International Union urges the Congress not to delay any funher in 

addressing the Nation's future energy independence. We request that you move forward 

with legislation to penni! ANWR oil exploration and development. lt will strengthen the 

American e.:onomy and its maritime industry, generate American jobs, and enhance the 

Nation's energy security. 

0 

ISBN 0-16-047777- 8 

c.__;:~;~:~ F~ p . 

President 

90000