S. HRG. 114–497 

ALASKA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT— 

OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE JOBS AND 

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL SECURITY 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 28, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

ALASKA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT—OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE JOBS AND 

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL SECURITY 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

21–970 2017

S. HRG. 114–497 

ALASKA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT— 

OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE JOBS AND 

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL SECURITY 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 28, 2016 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

STEVE DAINES, Montana 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia 

MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico 

MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii 

ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine 

ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts 

COLIN HAYES, Staff Director 

PATRICK J. MCCORMICK III, Chief Counsel 

KIP KNUDSON, Professional Staff Member 

ANNIE HOEFLER, Executive Assistant 

ANGELA BECKER-DIPPMANN, Democratic Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Democratic Chief Counsel 

STEPHANIE TEICH-MCGOLDRICK, Democratic Congressional Fellow 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman, and a U.S. Senator from Alaska .................. 1 

WITNESSES 

Anderson, Michelle, President, Ahtna, Inc. ........................................................... 4 

Barrett, Admiral Tom, President, Alyeska Pipeline Service Company ............... 9 

Glenn, Richard, Executive Vice President for Lands and Natural Resources, 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation ...................................................................... 15 

Marushack, Joe, President, ConocoPhillips Alaska .............................................. 26 

Jeffress, Bill, Principal Consultant, SRK Consulting ........................................... 47 

Jorgensen, Bronk, Fortymile Mining District ....................................................... 53 

Simon, Lorali, Vice President, External Affairs, Usibelli Coal Mine, Inc. .......... 57 

Tangen, J.P., Attorney at Law, Alaska Miners Association ................................. 64 

Beltrami, Vince, President, Alaska AFL-CIO ........................................................ 259 

Herbert, Lisa, President and CEO, Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce 265 

Hutchinson, Chad, Director, Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center ...................... 272 

Pomeroy, Kevin, Business Manager/Secretary-Treasurer, Laborers’ Local 942 . 276 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

Anderson, Michelle: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 4 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 7 

Barrett, Admiral Tom: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 9 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 11 

Beltrami, Vince: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 259 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 262 

Fairbanks Economic Development Corporation: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 308 

Glenn, Richard: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 15 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 17 

Herbert, Lisa: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 265 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 268 

Hutchinson, Chad: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 272 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 274 

Jeffress, Bill: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 47 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 50 

Jorgensen, Bronk: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 53 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 55 

Longan, Sara: 

Statement for the Record ................................................................................. 309 

Marushack, Joe: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 26 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 28 

Milkowski, Stefan: 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 313 

Page

IV 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Pomeroy, Kevin: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 276 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 279 

Schaetzle, Eric: 

Article entitled ‘‘Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016’’ .... 296 

Letter for the Record ........................................................................................ 315 

Article entitled ‘‘An Alaskan Roadmap to 100% Renewable Energy’’ dated 

1/30/16 ............................................................................................................ 316 

Simon, Lorali: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 57 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 59 

Tangen, J.P.: 

Opening Statement ........................................................................................... 64 

Written Testimony ............................................................................................ 66 

(1) 

ALASKA RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT—OPPORTUNITIES TO CREATE JOBS AND 

STRENGTHEN NATIONAL SECURITY 

MONDAY, MARCH 28, 2016 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, 

Fairbanks, AK. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m. AKDT at 

the Pipeline Training Center, 3605 Cartwright Court, Building C, 

Fairbanks, Alaska, Hon. Lisa Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM ALASKA 

The CHAIRMAN. Good afternoon and welcome to all of you. I 

would like to thank the Pipeline Training Center for allowing us 

to be here this afternoon for this field hearing of the Senate Energy 

and Natural Resources Committee. 

Before I begin my remarks I would like to invite Chad Hutchinson to come up and give us a little bit of a welcome and a safety 

moment, if you will. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Hello, everybody. Welcome to Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center. I thank everybody for coming to join us 

today. 

We’re just going to start out and have a safety minute as we do 

with all trainings here at the Training Center. 

The first thing I’d like to point out is the exits. In case of emergency there are the four exits over to the side, out the back, down 

the hall. 

Muster point, if we all have to leave we’ll be over at camp. We 

have a construction camp over here and it’s got a big letter E on 

top of it, E. So that will be our muster point. 

There’s an AED (defibrillator) just across the hall out here on the 

right. 

The rest rooms are just across the hall to the right also. 

It is great that you all have come to Fairbanks. You’re all looking 

very excited. You want to get out. You want to do things. Temperatures are getting up into the 40s, but we have to keep in mind it’s 

getting down into the 20s at night, so it’s still freezing. Allow yourselves a little bit of extra time, especially in the morning, tomorrow 

morning. They say it’s going to snow a couple inches tonight, again. 

So if that happens we all know there’s going to be ice underneath 

2 

that snow. So we’re going to have to be careful where we’re walking, going to have to pay attention. 

My wife, as some of you know, she’s still getting over a surgery 

on her shoulder. She slipped in a parking lot on ice. So please, take 

your time, walk. 

That concludes our safety minute. 

So with that, thank you, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chad, we appreciate it. And again, 

thank you for the opportunity to be in your facility here today. 

I would like to welcome all of the witnesses that have joined us 

for an important discussion about resource development within the 

State of Alaska. 

As many of you, I am sure, know, it was gold mining that ultimately determined the location of Fairbanks. It was Captain 

Barnette’s river boat that ran aground on the Chena and fate determined where his mining supply business was to be located. 

While Barnette was, perhaps, too late and too far away to profit 

from the Klondike gold rush, he was part of the Fairbanks gold 

rush that led us to modern day. 

Today Fort Knox and Pogo, both world class mines north and 

south of the city, continue the proud tradition to give meaning to 

Fairbanks’ motto: The Golden Heart City. 

This region, like so much of our state, is blessed with vast natural resources that we can use to gain prosperity and fulfill promises of statehood. 

Today is Seward’s Day. I actually forgot about that when we 

scheduled this hearing. But it is Seward’s Day and there is still a 

little bit of laughter and chuckle when people think about Seward’s 

ice box or Seward’s folly. But not even Seward could have conceived 

of the vast resource wealth when the U.S. purchased this amazing 

state from Russia. 

Alaska has what virtually no one else has: Tens of billions of barrels of oil, hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of natural gas, a massive supply of coal, countless deposits of hard rock minerals, and 

of course, renewable resources beyond imagination. If we can harness them, then we can supply them to the rest of our nation to 

sustain our growth, our competitiveness and our security. 

Really our hardest task is not in finding the resources or developing the know-how or recruiting the manpower needed to responsibly produce them. Instead, it is really overcoming the restrictions 

that are imposed, oftentimes, by our own Federal Government 

which fails to understand why Alaskans must be allowed to explore 

and to develop. 

Tens of millions of acres of our lands and waters have been unilaterally withdrawn in recent years, against our strongest objections, and in my view, oftentimes in violation of the law. The 10– 

02 area of ANWR remains locked away. The Federal Government 

has made commercial production all but impossible in the offshore 

Arctic. It took far longer for CD–5 in a National Petroleum Reserve 

to gain regulatory approval than it should have. 

We have also witnessed repeated attempts to expand the use of 

pseudo wilderness designations from ‘‘aquatic resources of national 

importance’’ to ‘‘areas of critical environmental concern’’ and ‘‘outstanding national resource waters,’’ all to circumvent ANILCA’s ‘‘no 

3 

more’’ clauses and to stop development. At the same time federal 

agencies have generally become less cooperative, less willing to 

work with us to get to ‘‘yes,’’ and instead start and stay at ‘‘no.’’ 

Even producing on state lands has become more difficult, more 

costly, more complex and more time consuming for the likes of 

ASRC and Ahtna by virtue of actions that are taken at the federal 

level. 

We also face a crush of national regulations, from the Waters of 

the United States Rule to the Stream Protection Rule and a movement that believes that keeping needed resources in the ground 

will somehow result in a safer, more stable world. 

All of this comes at a time of low resource prices, at a time when 

the Federal Government should be trying to protect the competitiveness of our extractive industries, not finding ways to close off 

access and strand their capital. This is a time when we should be 

opening our lands and waters to responsible development, streamlining the permitting process and working to ensure that protests 

and litigation do not hold us back. This is a critical time for resource production in our state. 

I believe that we need to speak up. We need to highlight the hypocrisy that we see in efforts to lock down our lands while at the 

same time demonstrating how well we care for the environment as 

we develop our natural resources. There is no better way to do that 

than by hearing from Alaskans who know the benefits that come 

from increased resource production and what needs to be done at 

the federal level to unleash our potential. 

We have played a tremendous amount of defense in recent years 

and in many ways have, kind of, held our own. But in the remaining months of this Administration we could, yet again, be put back 

on our heels. We must be prepared for a new Administration that 

will take office just ten months from now, not knowing whether it 

will be friendlier in nature or perhaps even more antagonistic. 

We have got our work cut out for us. That any resource project 

can survive the current interplay between federal agencies and millions of pages of rules and countless more pages of guidelines, 

manuals, legal opinions and planning documents seems almost miraculous, but we know that it can be done. 

The states, including Alaska, typically permit projects in a fraction of the time that it takes the Federal Government. The offshore 

regulatory regime imposed in Alaska may be chaotic, but look at 

other countries. Look at Norway and Russia that have vibrant programs in their OCS regions. We can also look around the world and 

realize that it should take far less than seven to ten years for a 

new mine to begin operation. 

But I am optimistic about Alaska’s future. We have resources 

that all other nations covet. We are a provider in a growing and 

hungry world. 

We know that prices are low right now, but we have seen prices 

go up and we have seen prices go down. A majority of our citizens 

strongly support production because they understand the wide 

ranging benefits that ‘‘Made in the U.S.A.’’ carries, whether it is 

high paying jobs, to revenues, to energy and national security. 

So today we are gathering good ideas and counsel on how we 

might amend, reform, direct and provide oversight of federal law 

4 

in federal agencies. This is an opportunity, again, to hear from 

many in the sectors across the state. We have three strong panels 

that are with us this afternoon. 

The plan, or the schedule, for the next almost three hours will 

be to hear from the three panels, taking testimony about five minutes from each witness. I will have an opportunity at the conclusion of each panel to direct questions to the panelists. Once we 

have concluded the three panels, if we have time before the conclusion of the four o’clock hour, which I am most hopeful that we will, 

we will invite people who have joined us here this afternoon to 

offer their public comment. We ask that the comment be limited. 

There is a signup sheet somewhere in the back, at the back of 

the room there with Mr. Hammond. When we get to that point in 

the afternoon, we will give further instructions as to how we are 

going to move forward with that portion of the testimony. 

With that, I would like to commence with the first panel. 

It will be led off by Michelle Anderson, who is President of Ahtna 

Incorporated. It is good to have Michelle here in her leadership in 

a host of different areas. We just visited last week down in Anchorage. 

Admiral Tom Barrett, who is the President of Alyeska Pipeline 

Service Company, is with us. 

He will be followed by Mr. Richard Glenn, who is the Executive 

Vice President for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. 

The final panelist on panel one is Mr. Joe Marushack, who is 

President for ConocoPhillips, Alaska. 

Know that your full written statements will be included as part 

of the record as will all those who provide testimony to us this 

afternoon. 

So welcome to the field hearing, and thank you for being here. 

Michelle, if you would like to begin with your comments. 

STATEMENT OF MICHELLE ANDERSON, PRESIDENT, AHTNA, 

INC. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you. Thank you, Senator. 

Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Anderson. I am pleased to 

have the opportunity to provide comments to the Committee. I am 

a charter member of the Native Village of Gulkana, an Ahtna 

Shareholder and President of Ahtna, Incorporated. 

Ahtna is the smallest Alaska regional corporation established 

under ANCSA in 1971 and represents the interests of over 1,900 

Ahtna Athabascan shareholders. The Ahtna region encompasses 

eight villages and holds title to 1.6 million acres of land in South 

Central Alaska. All of our villages are connected by the road system. Raised in the Ahtna region, I am deeply committed to protecting my culture and our way of life, responsible land development and securing economic benefits for those I serve. I believe 

that these goals can coexist. 

Ahtna’s lands extend from the Denali Preserve to the Chitina. 

They surround North America’s tallest peak, Mt. Denali, to America’s largest national park, Wrangell-St. Elias. Ahtna has 622,000 

acres of land in the Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve, 

lands that our elders selected prior to the creation of the park. 

5 

Ahtna is now one of the largest in-holders of private property within public lands in the United States. 

Our lands are of paramount importance to the Ahtna people who 

have lived here for thousands of years and depend on hunting, fishing and other resources to sustain our way of life. 

Ahtna’s leaders have made it possible for the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) to be constructed from 1974 to 1977. A 55-mile 

corridor through Ahtna’s fee-simple lands was set aside for the 48- 

inch diameter pipeline. TAPS Pump Station 11 and the Glennallen 

Response Base were built near my family’s home. 

TAPS has transported approximately 17 billion barrels of oil 

through our lands in a safe and environmentally sound manner. 

My family, like so many others, directly benefitted from TAPS as 

both my parents worked on the pipeline. In fact, my father still 

works on TAPS today for Alyeska Pipeline Service Company. 

Ahtna’s shareholders and many other Alaska regional and village 

corporations have benefitted from TAPS with employment, contracting and training opportunities. In 2015, 39 percent of Ahtna 

employees on TAPS were Alaska Natives. These are highly paid 

jobs in a great work environment. 

Ahtna’s concern is that TAPS is operating at approximately 25 

percent of its capacity. The State of Alaska with Prudhoe Bay and 

Kuparuk have opened up their lands for safe and responsible resource development. Alaska Native Corporations like ASRC and 

Kuukpik Corporation made Alpine possible. 

ASRC shares 70 percent of the profits derived from Alpine with 

other regional corporations as a provision of 7(i) of ANSCA. Alaskans finally got our first North Slope oil in the federally-owned 

NPRA with CD–5 in late 2015. ConocoPhillips and its predecessor 

companies have tried for a very long period of time to develop oil. 

Senator Murkowski has been a vocal advocate of cleaning up 

NPRA from damages inflicted by the Federal Government over the 

last 60 plus years and it’s finally happening. 

It takes years, even decades, to drill just one exploratory well 

when the Federal Government is involved in the process. Our 

TAPS pipeline needs a lot more oil which needs to come from federal lands. 

Speaking as a mother of two sons in college, they will need work 

opportunities to remain living in Alaska. The Federal Government 

owns over 60 percent of Alaska’s 365 million acres of land. Ahtna 

has proven that a major world-class pipeline like TAPS can safely 

transport through our own lands. TAPS just needs more oil, particularly from federal lands, to keep running for future generations. 

In August 2015 I had the pleasure of meeting with President 

Obama along with other Alaska Native leaders. I stressed to the 

President the importance of Alaska LNG for all Alaskans. Approximately 35 miles of proposed Alaska LNG pipeline would flow underneath our beautiful Ahtna land. The Ahtna people will require 

this project to be constructed to the highest worldwide standards 

including materials and personnel. We are confident that the State 

of Alaska and its industry partners will be able to deliver. 

For the benefit of Ahtna shareholders and all Alaskans we need 

the Federal Government to open up their lands in a timely manner. 

This must include efficient land uses, permitting and a collaboVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
6 

rative relationship with the State of Alaska and industry for both 

oil and gas and mining. Ahtna owns some of the most pristine 

lands in the world and we have proven that development can occur 

safely and to the economic benefit of all Alaskans. The vast majority of Alaska’s federally-owned, resource rich lands are seldom, if 

ever, seen by Alaskans. 

In 1971, 45 years ago, ANCSA was passed. Ahtna was to receive 

title to land of 1.77 million acres. All these years later we are still 

waiting for a quarter of a million acres to complete our land settlement. Alaskans are frustrated that the Federal Government does 

not move very fast when Alaska acreage is part of the equation. 

We need the Federal Government to take a proactive approach 

with their vast acreage to provide economic benefits for Ahtna and 

all Alaskans. Several Alaska regional corporations, including Doyon 

and Ahtna, are attempting to develop our own lands for oil and 

gas. We need major oil and gas and mining companies to continue 

making multi-billion dollar investments in Alaska to keep TAPS 

running for the next 40 years to protect our Ahtna culture and to 

provide economic benefits to our shareholders. 

On behalf of all the Ahtna people I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to speak today. Tsin’aen. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Anderson follows:] 

7 


Insert offset folio 20 here 21970A.001
8 


Insert offset folio 21 here 21970A.002
9 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Michelle. 

Admiral Barrett, welcome to the Committee. 

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL TOM BARRETT, PRESIDENT, 

ALYESKA PIPELINE SERVICE COMPANY 

Admiral BARRETT. Chairman Murkowski, thank you for the opportunity to testify. I’m particularly delighted to have this opportunity to be at the Pipeline Training Center. Alyeska has been 

proud to be part of supporting this organization since start-up and 

they have helped train many of the high skilled, very smart and 

very tough workers that our company, our industry and actually, 

the state depends on. So I want to thank them for that also. 

They’ve been a huge basis of support for us. 

TAPS, the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, is fundamentally 

sound infrastructure, although it’s a little low, but it’s fundamentally sound. We have an extremely strong workforce, but we’re operating well under capacity. 

This morning I saw a note from our Oil Movement Engineering 

Director. He was up at Pump Station One on Friday, and we ran 

a successful full load test on new pumps that we’ve installed up 

there, new booster pumps. That’s part of our renewal process on 

the system. And so we ran them up to a full load and proved that 

it was running fine. That’s 1.09 million barrels for a full load. 

Today is one of the best days we’ve had this winter on the pipeline, and our numbers are higher in the winter than in the summer. We were at 556,000 barrels. So without any change, without 

any strain, without any lift, we could take in up to 1.09 million 

barrels if it was available to us today. 

The low flow, as you know and I’ve talked about before, it creates 

many challenges with water and wax and just the flow rate. It’s, 

kind of, like your car. It’s designed to actually to run very efficiently when your vehicle is at 55/60 miles an hour down the highway. If you ran it all the time at 15 or 20 miles an hour, you’d get 

super build up and your spark plugs would clog. Pretty soon you 

would get backfires. You need to maintain the car much more aggressively. 

And that’s kind of, TAPS. We’re running well below the space 

that we were designed to run. We’re confident we can handle that. 

We’ve got a great, great workforce and are constantly renewing, 

but it is costly. It’s increasingly complex, and it’s difficult for us to 

do. 

We do know, and our workforce knows, both our own employees 

and our contractors, that we need to operate safely, and we do. 

Last year was the safest year ever in TAPS history. We had near 

perfect reliability. We had an extremely strong environmental 

record. 

And as you look around at some of the recognition our people 

have gotten, we received the API Large Pipeline Operator Award 

for environmental performance, we received the Governor’s Safety 

Award, for the fifth year in a row we were selected as one of the 

world’s most ethical companies, and we received for our Vessel of 

Opportunity Program in Prince William Sound a Stewardship 

Award from the Alaska Sea Life Center. 

10 

My point to you though is that the backbone of our organization 

is not simply infrastructure. It’s our people, both blue collar and 

white collar workforces. We’re over 90 percent Alaska-based, 70 

percent by the way of partnerships with our contractors, our Alaska-based companies. We’re 20 percent Alaska Native. We’re over 30 

percent women. We’re over 33 percent minority. And our key partners include companies like Doyon and ASRC and Ahtna and Chugach and NANA. We’re very proud of that. 

And our people, in many cases, are the backbones in their communities so the benefit that comes is not just the jobs, but the people that come with those jobs, the families that come with those 

jobs and what they contribute to their communities whether it’s 

food banks, United Way, coaching sports teams, being active in 

churches. They are the backbone of many Alaska communities, and 

we’re very proud of that. They’re very generous with their time, 

their leadership and their energy. 

So the key to keep our sustained ability is throughput. I heard 

a statement—up in Fairbanks here you had a big week last week 

with the Arctic Council meetings. I heard Else-Berit Eikeland, the 

Norwegian Ambassador to the Arctic Council, speak two weeks ago 

in Anchorage. She said Norway supports more oil development in 

the Barents Sea, and this is a senior Norwegian official, recognizing the risks. 

She said the reason they can get it is because they understand 

that what comes with that development is foundation to the health 

and well-being of their communities. Norway has the highest percentage of its population of any circumpolar nation living above the 

Arctic Circle. So I think that’s the opportunity to both sustain and 

create more opportunities for that population. 

Senator, you mentioned many times before, we need better access. We need to improve the regulatory environment. If we get 

that I think we can safely deliver oil that benefits U.S. national security, the State of Alaska proudly and many thousands of people 

who work on support and benefit from our activities. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Admiral Barrett follows:] 

11 


Insert offset folio 27 here 21970A.003
12 


Insert offset folio 28 here 21970A.004
13 


Insert offset folio 29 here 21970A.005
14 


Insert offset folio 30 here 21970A.006
15 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Tom. 

Mr. Glenn, welcome. It is good to see you escaped from the volcano. Barrow is closed down because of the volcano. 

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

SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION 

Mr. GLENN: Yes, if you’re headed to Bethel or Nome or Kotzebue 

or Barrow, you shouldn’t be flying today. The airlines closed down 

the west half of the north portion of our state. 

Thank you, Senator, for inviting me to this hearing. My name is 

Richard Glenn. I’m Vice President of Lands and Natural Resources 

for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC), and I am grateful to 

be on this panel today. 

I was excited to learn about Ahtna’s history. And I hope that in 

my brief testimony you’ll get a little bit of a picture of the Arctic 

Slope region as well and our views on these important issues. 

There’s four key points that I’d like to present today, and my 

written testimony will go into greater detail. These points focus 

mostly on the challenges and barriers to responsible oil and gas development and mineral development in Alaska. 

We are an oil- and gas-dependent state, and resources extracted 

from our region are the main artery of Alaska’s economy. Over the 

years we’ve faced significant challenges and my written comments 

goes into detail, chapter and verse, on those challenges. 

The four broad points I’d like to take a look at is first of all, look 

at the balance of development with respect to communities, Arctic 

communities. 

Today’s debate seems to sway from absolute, complete, developing protection and stayed there rather than just balance of responsible development and protecting the environment, safe development. Rather than mothballing our resources at the detriment of 

local communities, consider how tribal and native communities are 

empowered by development and whether the risk has already been 

mitigated in the plan for development. Our local leadership works 

to provide controls on development in our region so that the mitigation is already there when the development proceeds. 

This preserves the environment, this allows for our local economy 

and it allows our local subsistence activities to put food on our tables. The local perspective should not be overlooked, dismissed or 

marginalized as the Federal Government develops resources in the 

Arctic. 

Second, I would urge that the Federal Government resist the permanent setting aside of large swaths of land and ocean in the name 

of, for example, species protection. The Arctic is home to these huge 

migrations of animals, that go from East to West, North to South, 

and they go in and out of the frame of the picture for any small, 

special set-aside patch of land or ocean. It’s the migration and 

seasonality of ice cover and open water is so big that it renders 

these small parcels almost meaningless. 

The polar bear critical habitat designation, for example, which is 

about as big as the State of California is probably going to be a 

well known example of this, but there are many others and there’s 

potentially going to be many more. But our experience with onVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
16 

shore and offshore is that setting aside of huge swaths of land 

often has unintended negative impacts. 

Third, I would like to thank the Administration for embracing 

green and renewable energy. There can be an appropriate mix of 

extractive industry and green energy, but green energy, for example, in rural Alaska is not a replacement for commercial development. Also, it’s not even a replacement for the diesel fuel, for example, in our region that’s the lifeblood of the smallest villages. 

All you have to do is travel just up the hill to the Cold Climate 

Housing Research Center and look at some marvelous successes in 

solar power and energy conservation. We embrace this technology, 

but we recognize it for what it is. 

Finally, we have issues with respect to the several agencies within the Federal Government on education. It’s difficult to educate 

them about Alaska Native issues. I think that in this Administration we’ve made great progress on tribal consultation, but there 

still needs to be an awareness of this, kind of, braided rope relationship that we have, especially in my region between tribes, municipalities and the ANSCA Corporations. ANSCA land ownership, 

resource ownership, benefits tribal members. And so, although we 

are three different animals, we represent the same constituents 

and we are braided together like strands of a rope. 

The Administration appears not to understand the value of resource development to municipalities and tribal members. These 

are our shareholders. We were created by Congress and are the 

largest private landowners in this state, yet our ownership is sometimes disregarded or it’s discounted as if our charge is irrelevant 

to the contribution to the quality of life for the people who we 

serve. 

Senator Murkowski and other Committee members, as you look 

to development and national energy policy, please remember that 

Alaska is massive for domestic energy production. It’s also our 

home. 

ASRC appreciates all of your efforts to pursue federal legislation 

that would address obstacles to sustainable oil and gas development. We also appreciate your steadfast commitment to the challenging issues before us in federal management, land management, 

regulations and policies. These have left an uncertainty for developers in this state. ASRC is poised to assist you as you look for 

proper solutions for these issues. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:] 

17 


Insert offset folio 37 here 21970A.007
18 


Insert offset folio 38 here 21970A.008
19 


Insert offset folio 39 here 21970A.009
20 


Insert offset folio 40 here 21970A.010
21 


Insert offset folio 41 here 21970A.011
22 


Insert offset folio 42 here 21970A.012
23 


Insert offset folio 43 here 21970A.013
24 


Insert offset folio 44 here 21970A.014
25 


Insert offset folio 45 here 21970A.015
26 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Richard, we appreciate it. 

The last member on the panel is Mr. Joe Marushack, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF JOE MARUSHACK, PRESIDENT, 

CONOCOPHILLIPS ALASKA 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Thank you, Senator. 

In the interest of time I’m going to start about halfway through 

my written testimony and focus on the federal permitting challenges. 

Exploration and development in the Arctic, and particularly in 

Alaska, has its own special set of requirements. Because of the nature of the land, the tundra, the exploration wells built outside of 

existing infrastructure are drilled in the winter using ice roads and 

ice pads when the tundra is frozen. The ice-based infrastructure 

melts in the summer and leaves no marks; however, this reduces 

the amount of time available to drill to about three months of the 

year. 

When it comes to developing an exploration discovery the desire 

to minimize the development footprint requires that we process 

production from centralized facilities. It requires that we drill wells 

from central pads using expensive, extended reach drills. All this 

leads to costly development and longer time frames for exploration 

development than would be for land based outside the Arctic. 

There are a number of challenging regulatory issues we continue 

to have with development on federal lands, and I’ll summarize several of these. 

In order for development, conservation and impact mitigation to 

proceed orderly in NPRA, agency decisions must be predictable and 

reasonably durable. Predictability is essential for developers, residents, investors, the State of Alaska, North Slope Borough, Alaska 

Native Corps, the tribes and villages on the North Slope. 

Since we first began exploring in NPRA in 2000 we’ve seen 

steadily increasing and evolving requirements from the Federal 

Government. At this juncture in time we have over 250 federal requirements for new developments that must be addressed in 

NPRA. Again, time prevents me from reading this list to you, but 

I’ve included it in an attachment. 

The steady increase in standards and mitigation measures is 

complicated by the agencies revisiting previous work, decisions and 

compromises. For example, an environmental impact statement 

that was performed in 2004 explicitly evaluated and approved 

roads proposed for planned development of CD–5, GMT–1, Mooses 

Tooth One, Mooses Tooth Two. However, as permitting for each of 

these projects has proceeded we face additional requirements that 

were not part of the original project scope, adding time to the 

schedule, increasing costs and creating uncertainty regarding the 

viability of development. 

It is our belief that the current standards and mitigation measures that we follow in NPRA more than adequately address concerns about potential impacts to the environment and subsistence 

hunting. We recognize the legitimacy of those concerns, but we feel 

that they have been well considered and properly addressed. 

One federal issue that threatens even more uncertainty is the 

November 2015 White House Memorandum calling for the DepartVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
27 

ments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and all the Bureaus and Agencies within them, for example, the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, 

National Park Service, National Marine Fisheries and Fish and 

Wildlife Services, to develop new impact avoidance and mitigation 

standards in each of the agency’s areas of jurisdiction. 

This new policy has the potential to upset the balance of protection and development that Congress has directed in the laws under 

which the agencies operate. From what we have been able to assess 

the basis for estimating impacts and associated mitigation measures are not well defined, not predictable and do not allow us to 

estimate the effect that it may have on the overall economics of oil 

and gas development. As the agencies provide detail around their 

plans, assuming there’s a public process, we’ll be submitting comments regarding their concerns. 

In closing, ConocoPhillips, through its heritage companies ARCO 

Alaska, Phillips Petroleum and Conoco, has been an active explorer 

and developer on both federal and state lands in Alaska, both onshore and offshore, from Cook Inlet to the North Slope, for over 50 

years. We have a track record of environmental and social responsibility operations. Through our investments and those of our other 

oil and gas companies we’ve generated jobs for Alaskans and created wealth for the State of Alaska, Alaska communities, Native 

regional and village corporations and their shareholders. 

While we’re still very active on state lands, federal lands represent new opportunities to continue supporting the Alaska economy. It’s our intent to work with the Federal Government, residents of the Slope, the State of Alaska and other stakeholders to 

address concerns such that there is a reasonable, regulatory framework guiding oil and gas development on North Slope lands. 

Thank you, Senator. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Marushack follows:] 

28 


Insert offset folio 51 here 21970A.016
29 


Insert offset folio 52 here 21970A.017
30 


Insert offset folio 53 here 21970A.018
31 


Insert offset folio 54 here 21970A.019
32 


Insert offset folio 55 here 21970A.020
33 


Insert offset folio 56 here 21970A.021
34 


Insert offset folio 57 here 21970A.022
35 


Insert offset folio 58 here 21970A.023
36 


Insert offset folio 59 here 21970A.024
37 


Insert offset folio 60 here 21970A.025
38 


Insert offset folio 61 here 21970A.026
39 


Insert offset folio 62 here 21970A.027
40 


Insert offset folio 63 here 21970A.028
41 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Joe. 

Thank you all for your testimony. 

Let me ask, probably a general question, to each of you to begin 

the conversation. 

Richard, you used the words ‘‘Alaska is an asset.’’ ‘‘Alaska is our 

home.’’ When we think about Alaska as the place that we live and 

work and raise our families, it is important to recognize that we 

have considerable assets associated with the land. It is how we access those assets and do so in a way that provides for jobs, provides 

for sustainable economy, but also accesses them in a way that ensures that we are good environmental stewards for the land. We 

want to raise our families in a place as beautiful as your family has 

lived for generations, and generations and generations, and we 

want to be able to do so going into the future. 

From a broader perspective, given the testimony that each of you 

have presented here today, what more can we be doing, should we 

be doing, to ensure that Alaskans are able to achieve their fullest 

potential with the resources that we have available to us in our 

state? 

Joe, you have mentioned from Conoco’s perspective, regulations 

hold us back. I think you have suggested, Michelle, that access is 

a consideration. I do not care who starts off the conversation, but 

can you each speak to the areas that you feel that Alaska’s potential in accessing our resources is being held back in some way by 

the Federal Government so that we can know better how to help 

us? I will throw that out to whoever would like to begin. 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Go ahead, Richard. 

Mr. GLENN. I will give it a shot. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Mr. GLENN. I think there are two areas that your question leads 

me: that has to do with land ownership and federal leasing, leasing 

of federal lands, both the on and offshore. And also that the price 

of delay, even an approved project, if it takes multiple years to 

start from exploration to production, there’s a price associated with 

that. 

So let us start with that one first. As you know in Alaska most 

of the resource wells have been produced from state-owned lands, 

but there is some, and Michelle alluded to it, there is some production now coming from Native-owned lands and there is Nativeowned lands now fighting being developed in the National Petroleum Reserve. 

My point is if the resource development is of value to Native people and then that project is delayed over multiple years, that represents a real financial impact to Native people. We have distributed from the portion of production that is owned by Alaska’s Native people, from the Alpine and satellite fields, we’ve distributed 

more than $1 billion to all of the regional corporations throughout 

the state. And yet if there is some portion of our resource that is 

made unavailable to us over a period of years, that has a real, 

measureable, financial impact to all of Alaska’s Native Regional 

Corporations. So that is the first one, there is a cost associated 

with delay. 

The second one is that the terms for leasing might be reconsidered. The federal leasing terms should consider a revamp that 

42 

somehow protects the terms of the leases during this lengthy exploration to production phase. Given our setting, it is remote, it is Arctic, it is sensitive. There are all kinds of reasons for why it should 

take a measureable, well thought out process from exploration to 

development. My point is get rid of the excessive delay and reconsider the terms for federal leasing that somehow takes into account 

the multiyear phases it must go even at its most efficient pace from 

exploration to production. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Joe. 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Sure, sure. 

So I picked up on a point when you asked your question, Senator. 

It is not the regulations that are so problematic, it is the interpretation and the unpredictability in how those regulations are going 

to be interpreted sometimes. 

We believe that the regulatory agencies should be following their 

statutory mandates not only to protect the environment and subsistence but also by a reasonable and balanced path to ensure 

transparency and predictability in those regulations and to avoid 

overlap among the agencies regarding lands that are leased well in 

advance of development. 

As Richard mentioned, one of the things that we think makes 

some sense as well is for areas that have been taken off limits but 

ought to be reconsidered. We think that there are some good opportunities for exploration and development. It is kind of amazing that 

I think that the Native Corporations and the people of the North 

and people developing these resources can come to an agreement 

on how that ought to be developed, but we’re precluded by doing 

that by some of the federal mandates. 

The CHAIRMAN. Others? 

Admiral BARRETT. Senator, a couple of thoughts specifically on 

regulations. 

I have been on both sides of this fence both with the Coast 

Guard, the Pipeline Safety Agency, USDOT and now with the pipeline operator. I think fundamentally some of my background at the 

Coast Guard, 35 years ago, it is a different philosophy or approach 

to regulating an industry to a certain extent, but it is complex. You 

cannot dumb it down. 

But always in the Coast Guard the goal was never to stop ships 

from sailing. The goal was not to tie up the ships. The goal was 

to have them sail safely because there is an acknowledgement and 

a recognition that maritime commerce is important to the economy, 

the health, the security and the well-being of this nation. 

I do not see that relative to oil and gas. I think a much more 

collaborative relationship between the agencies that implement 

statutes and write regulations and less prescriptive one, but fundamentally collaborative. I feel strongly some of our best ideas that 

work, we have got 800 employees, another 600 baseline contractors, 

thousands of others. They show up every day trying to do a good 

job at what they do. We are not the enemy of anybody. 

I think working with us and with companies is somehow perceived as a conflict. It is very much a command and control regime 

that is going to find you doing something wrong. 

43 

In the long-term I think that gets you less safety, less reliable 

performance, more environmental risk than just an upfront, open, 

collaborative approach to what a regulation might mean to track 

where those go and then follow it. I just think, I don’t see that. So 

I think that is an opportunity to shape the regulatory regimes in 

that direction. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay. 

Michelle, do you have anything to add? 

Ms. ANDERSON. Just real briefly. 

You know, development in our area, just like it is anywhere else 

in terms of the federal delays or barriers that you are asking about, 

it is very hard. It is very challenging to work with individuals or 

people who are interpreting regulations who have never even been 

to our area, who don’t understand the lay of the land, if you will. 

So we do a lot of education of these individuals and agencies when 

they have already scoped out a project or an area and then coming 

back to us, the people that live there, and trying to make their 

project fit where we are at. 

So, just more involvement of local people, landowners, from the 

beginning verses bringing us in at the end, I think, would be helpful. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well that, kind of, ties into a follow on question 

that I wanted to ask which is how we, as Alaskans, again who are 

choosing to live and work and raise our families here, how we convey to the rest of the country, and often to the rest of the world, 

that what we seek to do here is to develop our state’s resources and 

assets but that we do so with an eye towards stewardship. 

We oftentimes do not get very much credit for the fact that we 

do have the kind of safety record that you have cited, Admiral Barrett; that we do have a level of care for production up on the North 

Slope, for instance, the likes of which you do not see anywhere else 

in the world in terms of the standards that are adhered to. 

The question that I would ask, and I will direct it initially both 

to you, Richard, and to you, Michelle, is how we can keep our 

minds straight on development and environmental protection? I 

will take you to a quote the President made when he was up in 

the state in September. Governor Walker had been urging that he 

look to expand access for oil and gas development, and the President said, and I am quoting here. ‘‘One of the ironies when you’re 

up in Alaska, and I mean this sincerely, it shows you that everybody can be two minds about this. I have some people saying we 

ought to protect this beauty and scenic areas and make sure that 

no one, nobody, is polluting it. And then, oh and by the way, let’s 

get going on some oil drilling at the same time.’’ 

I am one of those people, I guess, in the ironic category because 

I do support new access and I do support new development and I 

do not see the conflict in our ability to protect our lands and to 

make it available, not only for this generation, but generations 

going forward. 

How do we do a better job? Michelle, you mentioned education. 

Richard, you have been in the, perhaps not so enviable, position of 

being invited back to Washington, DC on numerous occasions to 

testify. How can we do more? How can we convey the message that 

44 

it is not ironic? That we want to help our people and at the same 

time we can care for our lands? 

Mr. GLENN. Yeah, welcome to our world, right? 

So, the issue at home is stark. I mean we ask ourselves who is 

going to—our grandchildren, what kind of school would they go to? 

Will there be reliable power in their communities? How will we 

fund the road maintenance? Even snow blowing and ambulance 

service, things that the rest of the world takes for granted are 

present in each of our communities only because of the presence of 

development in our region. 

So we are open about it. We depend on continued development 

for the survival of our communities. It is great that we have the 

ability to hunt in our region, but we do not have a home to come 

home to if we do not also have development in our region. 

And so, the message or the task becomes how do you convince 

the world that there is something between absolute protection like 

putting a jar over something and never letting anything in it and 

allowing people to live? And the pristine mystique of the Arctic will 

rub off and go away pretty fast when you are in survival mode or 

when your community is in a survival mode. 

The way we have been able to do it at home, I think, is to create 

alignment. That is, we have invested in development in our region 

as an owner, a landowner, and an equity owner. That way when 

there is success for the explorer, there is success for our community’s residents. If we were just victims of development, that is the 

opposite of the spectrum, the opposite end of it where we have no 

ownership, no participation and we are just victims of negative impacts. We looked at that and decided that the way to create success 

in our region is to create alignment. The way to create alignment 

is by investing in the only industry that has been around in our 

region long enough to pay taxes. 

We have a bus that fills itself with tourists this time of year. 

They leave Alaska Airlines, they get on a bus, they drive around 

the town, they leave the bus, they go in a hotel, they go back on 

the bus, and then they leave. It is almost full every day with three 

jet flights every day. Yet, even that industry can barely supply its 

own needs as far as tax base. 

So we recognize our dependence on the oil and gas industry in 

our region, and we created alignment by investing in it. We think 

that that is the answer to this we/they syndrome between sitting 

on the inside and sitting on the outside. 

We are blessed in our region that it is big. There is room for everything. There is room for everybody. 

If you look at a map of the North Slope and you look at the infrastructure of oil and gas pipelines, it depends on the width of the 

ink that they use to draw the map, but you get the impression that 

there is a spider web full of pipelines. If instead you get dropped 

off in the middle of nowhere on Alaska’s North Slope, you are going 

to find out that there is a lot of open space and you will be thankful for that infrastructure when you do eventually come across it. 

[Laughter.] 

So, there is a lot of room in our region. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Michelle. 

45 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you for asking. It gives me an opportunity 

to share Ahtna’s vision which is our culture unites us, our land 

sustains us, our people are prosperous. 

Our people highly prize our land and our food resources, so we 

are extremely protective over both. We would never jeopardize or 

compromise the future of our people by standing for irresponsible 

land development. 

Our people are born there. They are buried there. That is our 

home. We would take care of it to the very best of our abilities and 

protect it. 

We also, you know, that second line of the vision statement, our 

land sustains us. While it feeds us and provides us homes, we also 

believe that our elders selected those lands to take care of us. We 

are resource rich and we are very interested in not only developing 

those resources, but getting our people long-term jobs and careers 

at home so they do not have to leave the area to work in Anchorage, or Fairbanks, or wherever, you know. Our lands were selected 

for a reason, and we take very good care of them. 

The CHAIRMAN. Admiral Barrett, you mentioned that we are at 

556,000 barrels of oil moving down the pipeline at this moment. 

The capacity is 1.09 million per day that we could see if we were 

to have full capacity in TAPS. 

What would that mean in terms of additional jobs for Alaskans 

and exactly what type of jobs? 

Admiral BARRETT. Sure. 

So what it would mean for Alaskans to start with is you would 

have to have the development to fill us up, right? So that is thousands of jobs on the exploration and development and all the work 

that goes with it. 

But the types of jobs we have in this industry are generally high 

tech. We have been strong supporters of the Alaska Native Science 

and Engineering Program since its start as have some of the other 

people at this table, ANSEP. We need a high quality, high talent 

workforce. It is engineering heavy in the white collar, but it is 

every skill set. It is accounting and it is finance and it is engineering. We are almost 40 percent blue collar, alright? 

So this is background American jobs, but they are instrument 

techs. They are mechanical techs. They are electricians. They are 

electrical techs. They are skilled jobs, they pay good salaries and 

they allow people to make a good living. 

But fundamentally they are skilled jobs, skilled labor. And the 

people up here that we have working for us and the people that 

train them do a fabulous job and they are very, very good at what 

they do. But it is a skill set whether it is blue collar or white collar, 

and it is all across the board, Senator. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just ask one more question of you, Mr. 

Marushack, and then I think we will move to the next panel. 

Your testimony has spoken, primarily, to Conoco’s activities 

there within NPRA, GMT–1 and 2, but Conoco is also a lease holder in our continental shelf areas. Have you given much thought to 

a better leasing and regulatory system that could be implemented 

in frontier areas in our OCS? 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Well Senator, yes. 

46 

One thing that has to happen is you have to have lease sales on 

a fairly regular basis. The last one was 2007. The next one is 2020. 

It is extraordinarily difficult to do oil and gas development when 

you have got 13 years in between those areas and when so many 

of the best perspective opportunities are taken off the table. 

But that is just to go back also on that to answer your question 

on how we can develop these areas responsibly. Having worked all 

over the world I can tell you that industry’s ability to protect its 

license to operate is based on safety and environmental performance. In Alaska we are absolutely, I am very pleased with the 

amount of safety and environmental performance that we focus on. 

You know, the other thing is our relationship with the Native 

Corporations and the people, the owners of the Slope. All over the 

world this is very, very unique. 

So to come back to your question again then. If we can do it in 

an environmental and safe process and if we have the support of 

the local landowners and people that live up there, it feels to me 

like we ought to have opportunities to develop and expand this opportunity on a much more regular basis. 

The CHAIRMAN. Last chance, final word from any of the four on 

the panel? 

Mr. MARUSHACK. So could I tell you one—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. MARUSHACK. That is operating within NPRA. 

NPRA is about the size of the State of Indiana. Our developments on CD–5, Mooses Tooth 1, Mooses Tooth 2, are 185 acres, 

0.0008 percent of the acreage up there is what we are trying to develop right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. 0.000? 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Eight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Eight. 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Percent. 

The CHAIRMAN. Percent. 

Mr. MARUSHACK. 185 acres over roughly 25 million acres. 

The CHAIRMAN. That puts it in context. 

Admiral Barrett. 

Admiral BARRETT. You mentioned too about how people can understand that we are able to reconcile these apparently competing 

interests. 

I would just ask people to look—I mean I have been up and down 

the pipeline now for five years. I have seen black and white bears, 

caribou, moose, fox, wolves, squirrels, birds, the caribou herd in our 

region is four to five times larger than it was before we started development. 

I think our quotes are instinctively conservationist. We pay a lot 

of attention to it. But they even value the environment we are in 

more than anybody else because they live in it. And I think if you 

actually look at the record of the pipeline and the development on 

the Slope, the record stands very strong, yet it is hardly even 

moved. 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. 

Michelle. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you, Senator. 

47 

I guess my last comment on the subject is come visit us in January and not spring when it feels like they should have a say in 

terms of what is vulnerable, a person or a region or the agencies 

that create the regulations that we have to follow. Look at our fuel 

bills. Look at how our people have to make choices. I am not just 

talking about Ahtna people, I am talking about people that live in 

the communities all along the road system. We are not Anchorage. 

We are not Fairbanks or some of the larger communities where 

there are stores and choices and jobs. We are there because we 

want to be there. That is our home. We want jobs. We want resource development. We want to be able to raise our families there. 

We do not want any more schools closing. 

So I would urge people that, you know, before you make a decision for other people, come and live in our situation for a little 

while and see what it is really like. We find it beautiful, and I 

think it would be an absolute tragedy for the state if we were to 

force people to leave their homes to go to bigger cities in order to 

survive. Rural Alaska is beautiful and it will continue to remain so, 

so long as its people are there. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well put. 

Thank you all. 

Mr. MARUSHACK. Thank you. 

Admiral BARRETT. Thank you. 

Mr. GLENN. Thank you. 

Ms. ANDERSON. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. With that we will thank our first panel and move 

to panel number two. [Applause.] 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. We will reconvene with our second panel. 

Panel number two is composed of Mr. Bill Jeffress, who is a Principle Consultant at SRK Consulting. He will be followed by Mr. 

Bronk Jorgensen, who is with the Fortymile Miner’s Association. 

Good to have you with us today. Ms. Lorali Simon, who is the Vice 

President for Usibelli Coal Mine, is with us. The panel will be 

rounded out by Mr. J.P. Tangen, who is an Attorney at Law here 

in Fairbanks and a long time consultant and knowledgeable person 

when it comes to our federal land and particularly mines. So we 

appreciate that. 

Again, same kind of contours as far as testimony this afternoon. 

We would ask you to keep your comments to about five minutes. 

Your full written statements will be incorporated as part of the 

record. Once you all have completed your statements, we will have 

a chance for a little bit of back and forth with questions. 

With that, Mr. Jeffress, if you would like to lead us off. Thank 

you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF BILL JEFFRESS, PRINCIPAL CONSULTANT, 

SRK CONSULTING 

Mr. JEFFRESS. Thank you, Senator, thanks for the opportunity. 

My name is Bill Jeffress. I am the Vice President of Alaska Miners Association, a member of the Alaska Minerals Commission and 

Principal Consultant for SRK Consulting here in Alaska. I have 

been involved with research and development for over 40 years. Because of the vast difference between Alaska and other states, fedVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
48 

eral programs do not always adapt to Alaska even though some of 

those programs may very well meet the needs of other states. 

The U.S. Department of Interior agencies, such as Bureau of 

Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Parks control over 201,000,000 acres of the total 365,481,600 

left in Alaska. Over 75 percent of the federal land in Alaska is 

closed to mining. That translates into fewer opportunities for jobs. 

Federal flexibility and state collaboration to balance national 

policies with local conditions is needed for successful resource development. The State of Alaska and Alaska resource development 

industries have a long history of successful collaboration with federal and local jurisdictions. Unfortunately, federal land management agencies under this Administration are developing guidelines 

and policies without input from the State of Alaska or resource industries. 

The most alarming of these issues is that recently BLM resource 

management plans for Eastern Alaska, Bering Sea, Western Interior, Central Yukon planning areas include massive ‘‘areas of critical environmental concerns,’’ the ACECs you spoke of earlier. In 

addition, the natural research study areas, there are no timelines 

for completion of studies of these areas prior to lands being available for any type of resource development, if ever. 

BLM has implemented draft mitigation policies for a project on 

the North Slope and BLM’s Solicitors Office has rolled out a new 

interpretation of 43 CFR 3809 regulatory requirements. 

BLM, last Tuesday, proposed new reclamation standards for 

placer miners. BLM has not afforded any opportunities for industry 

or affected state agencies to participate in the development of these 

new requirements or policies. Alaska placer miners, whether they 

are large or just the mom and pop operations, are now required to 

prepare extensive supplemental plans and baseline documents. The 

new reclamation standards for Alaska placer miners were developed in the BLM bubble without any consultation of State of Alaska resource agencies that have decades of reclamation and habitat 

enhancement experience. Collaboration with resource industries in 

the State of Alaska resource agencies on lessons learned is nonexistent. The end result, and some would say the design result, is 

the elimination of all placer mining on BLM land. So much for the 

multiple use concept that was the mantra when I was in college. 

To further add to the frustration during this downturn in the 

economy, on November 3rd, 2015, President Obama’s Memorandum 

on Mitigation has initiated another round of government bureaucratic uncertainty for the resource development industry and a job 

killer. This Memorandum directs the Department of Interior, along 

with other government entities, to develop mitigation plans based 

on avoid, minimize and mitigate, a concept that has been administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for decades. 

If you will indulge me, I’d like to step back in time to the early 

1990s. Over 48 percent of Alaska’s surface area, 175,000,000 acres, 

is wetlands which is regulated by the Army Corps of Engineers. 

Under President Bill Clinton’s directive and some political persuasion from then Senator Ted Stevens in the form of the Alaska One 

Percent Rule, the Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

49 

Service and National Marine Fisheries initiated a two-year process 

that resulted in the 1994 Alaska Wetlands Initiative. 

This document, signed by all parties on May 13th, 1994, recognized the unique aspects of Alaska, the limited opportunities for 

mitigation and the need for additional flexibility in the Clean 

Water Act 404 permitting process. Even prior to President Obama’s 

Memorandum on Mitigation, the Corps of Engineers, through agency consultation during the review and permitting process, considered mitigation options offered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

EPA, NMFS and BLM. 

As a lead agency on most federal permitting activities in Alaska, 

the Corps of Engineers makes the final determination if provisions 

of the Clean Water Act are satisfied by avoidance and minimization 

or if mitigation would be required, what form of mitigation will it 

take such as permittee responsible mitigation, in-lieu fees or compensatory mitigation. The Corps of Engineers review and permitting process using the 1994 Wetlands Initiative as one of the tools 

to incorporate flexibility, where appropriate, although not perfect 

and without its own hiccups, has provided industry with some certainty. 

The President’s Mitigation Memorandum removes that certainty 

and potentially it leaves all developers and especially extractive resource industries faced with multiple mitigation requirements. 

These mitigation requirements not only are on federal land, but 

private and Native Corporation land. If Alaska is to develop its 

natural resources for the good of its citizens and the nation, this 

governing by command and control must cease. We need to reinitiate collaboration and cooperation for the good of the state and the 

health of the nation. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jeffress follows:] 

50 


Insert graphic folio 87 21970A.029
51 


Insert graphic folio 88 21970A.030
52 


Insert graphic folio 89 21970A.031
53 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bill, appreciate it. 

Mr. Jorgensen, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF BRONK JORGENSEN, FORTYMILE MINING 

DISTRICT 

Mr. JORGENSEN. Thank you. 

I’d like to thank the Committee for letting me testify on behalf 

of the Mining District today. The Fortymile Mining District is currently made up of about 100 miners and was established on the 

Fortymile Bar of the Fortymile River on March 25, 1898 under the 

1866 Mining Act and the 1872 General Mining Act, making the 

District 118 years old this week. The District is approximately 

6,000 square miles and is the oldest and longest standing mining 

district in the State of Alaska. Since 1898 the District has been actively engaged with governmental agencies to promote family placer mines and create a healthy and vibrant environment for all user 

groups of the Fortymile watershed. 

Placer mining in the Fortymile is a clean process, as it is across 

the state. No acid leeching or other chemicals are used, just water 

and hard work. The overall footprint is minimal to the extent that 

the 1986 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) showed that collectively all placer mining in the Fortymile District would have no 

significant impact. 

The number of acres that the EIS assumed in 1986 would be 

mined by 1996 hasn’t even been reached today, and we’re 30 years 

out. Total, all placer activity in the Fortymile is smaller than an 

Iowa farm. Clearly, gold is a critical part of our society, needed in 

the assembly of vehicles, computers, cell phones and all kinds of 

other necessities. The gold produced by our operations is used for 

these and other items without the environmental impact caused by 

other forms of mining. 

All placer mines in the state are currently facing an unprecedented obstacle in dealing with regulatory agencies like the BLM, 

EPA, DEC, U.S. Army Corps. In spite of the fact that there is no 

history of any environmental damage done by any members of our 

District, we are inundated by instructional memoranda, reinterpretation of regulations and a complex REM policy for reclamation. 

BLM has failed to provide adequate funding and staffing for the 

3809 mining program but at the same time has spent hundreds of 

thousands on the REM policy. On my personal operation, in five 

years I think I’m on my sixth inspector. 

The BLM’s use of areas of critical environmental concern will 

close off access and lock up over 700,000 federal acres and essentially land-locking thousands or more acres owned by Doyon and 

the State of Alaska in the Fortymile region. This will remove any 

possibility of critical, strategic mineral prospecting in the area. The 

ACECs are also clearly contrary to the ‘‘no more clause’’ of 

ANILCA. 

In 2008 the BLM started the scoping process to replace the individual resource management plans for the Fortymile Rivers, White 

Mountains and Steese National Conservation Area. The BLM has 

claimed that they are only amending, consolidating and updating 

these resource management plans. This is incorrect. BLM is replacing these plans with the proposed Eastern Interior Management 

54 

plan. The current Fortymile Rivers Management Plan was required 

by and was approved by Congress in 1982. The BLM does have the 

ability to update the plan but not replace it as stated on BLM’s 

website. 

Sitting in front of me is the old plan, and underneath the microphone, the new plan. There is something fundamentally wrong 

with what is happening when you look at these two piles. The BLM 

is treating the Fortymile District as if it were an evil entity that 

needs to be governed with an iron fist. 

Currently in the Fortymile BLM will not allow any new mining 

claims to be staked because of the withdrawals. This is in direct 

conflict with the 1872 Mining Law which gives citizens of the country the right to mine and ANILCA specifically granted prior existing rights to the users of the resource and the rights they have. 

The Fortymile Mining District would like to be positive, and 

what we need to be doing is helping family placer mining operations. This will help with the economy and strengthen national security. But with the current regulatory scheme it is tough to be 

positive. In essence, this boils down to federal overreach that goes 

against the Statehood Act, ANCSA and ANILCA. 

We need to lift the federal land withdrawals so the federal 

ground is once again as it was supposed to be, open to mineral 

staking and prospecting. 

As a multiuse agency, BLM should be helping to develop placer 

mines and access to private, Native and state lands, not rolling out 

hundreds of new pages of regulations, instructional memorandas 

and in-house policy. 

Let’s try to work on reducing regulatory paperwork and encourage more people to go out and develop small placer operations. 

Thank you to the Committee and the Senator for letting us testify. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jorgensen follows:] 

55 


Insert offset folio 95 here 21970A.032
56 


Insert offset folio 96 here 21970A.033
57 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Bronk. 

Lorali Simon, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF LORALI SIMON, VICE PRESIDENT, EXTERNAL 

AFFAIRS, USIBELLI COAL MINE, INC. 

Ms. SIMON. Thank you very much. 

Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski. I appreciate the invitation to come today and discuss Alaska’s coal resources and how our 

industry is creating Alaska jobs as well as playing a vital role in 

strengthening our national security. 

Usibelli is celebrating our 73rd year of operation this year. We 

proudly supply 100 percent of the in-state demand to six coal-burning power plants, and we have a long history of exporting coal on 

the international market. Today Usibelli employs about 108 people. 

The average wage paid to our employees is more than double the 

average wage in Alaska. Usibelli’s operations directly provide about 

20 percent of private sector employment for Healy’s year-round 

residents. 

The McDowell Group produced a report that was based on 2013 

data on the socio-economic impacts of Usibelli Coal Mine. There 

were 640 direct, indirect, induced and coal-fired power plant jobs 

which equated to nearly $49 million in wages. Usibelli spent close 

to $41 million with Alaska businesses and made up 22 percent of 

the Alaska railroad corporations freight revenue. 

Coal is Interior Alaska’s lowest cost source of energy and accounts for nearly one third of electrical energy generation. In the 

absence of Usibelli Coal, energy costs in Interior Alaska would be 

much higher, perhaps 25 percent higher than they are today, a cost 

of approximately $200 million annually. Fort Wainwright and Eielson Air Force Base spend about $33 

million a year on coal purchases. If trucked natural gas from the 

North Slope becomes available, the bases could switch to natural 

gas but their energy costs would triple. Let us not forget that natural gas is not available to the military today nor is it available 

to Interior Alaska. Military spending is estimated to support 30 

percent of the Fairbanks’ economy. Large increases in energy costs 

could risk maintaining the military’s presence in the Interior. 

On another note, Senator, we certainly cannot deny the reality 

that unnecessary government regulation is taking its toll on our industry. Primarily we are deeply concerned about the proposed federal Stream Protection Rule. If this proposed rule becomes final, it 

will likely kill coal development in Alaska. 

The Stream Protection Rule represents a complete rewrite of the 

1977 Surface Coal Mine Control and Reclamation Act which we call 

SMCRA. It is not a simple revision. Congress passed SMCRA, yet 

today we are seeing unelected federal bureaucrats violate legislative intent which will kill America’s coal industry. The proposed 

Stream Protection Rule is a violation of states’ rights. It unlawfully 

seizes the regional discretion granted in SMCRA, and it overthrows 

state primacy. 

Senator, I do not need to tell you how unique the geology is on 

the North Slope verses Southeast Alaska. The Stream Protection 

Rule targets coal mining in Appalachia, yet it is being smeared 

across the entire country all the way to Alaska. Alaska was not 

58 

considered nor consulted in the drafting of the proposed rule. No 

scientific studies relevant to Alaska are referenced in the documentation and no public meetings were held here. Of greatest concern to us is that we only had 91 days to review over 3,000 pages 

of documents, all of which took OSM over six years to produce, yet 

industries, state agencies and stakeholders had only 91 days to review. 

In summary, I do not believe that the proposed Stream Protection Rule can be fixed enough to be palatable. I believe the entire 

proposed rule should be thrown out and the agency should begin 

again, this time with proper consultation with the states. 

Since it is unlikely that the Administration will take such action, 

a very simple solution would be the passage of the STREAM Act. 

Madam Chair, Usibelli Coal Mine respectfully requests the Committee to pass S. 1458, Senator Coats’ bill. This bill will require the 

Secretary of Interior to make publicly available all data relied on 

for new regulations, environmental impact statements as well as 

environmental and economic assessments. This bill will also ensure 

that the Secretary does not needlessly duplicate or encroach upon 

environmental laws under the jurisdiction of other agencies. 

The bill will encourage a transparent rulemaking process and 

guarantee that the proposed SPR, Stream Protection Rule, does not 

add needless regulation. 

Thank you for your time today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Simon follows:] 

59 


Insert offset folio 102 here 21970A.034
60 


Insert offset folio 103 here 21970A.035
61 


Insert offset folio 104 here 21970A.036
62 


Insert offset folio 105 here 21970A.037
63 


Insert offset folio 106 here 21970A.038
64 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Last we will go to Mr. J.P. Tangen, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF J.P. TANGEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW, ALASKA 

MINERS ASSOCIATION 

Mr. TANGEN. Thank you, Senator. 

I appear today on behalf of 1,800 members of the Alaska Miners 

Association. 

I believe that it goes without saying that the very existence of 

the State of Alaska is dependent upon the development of its abundant natural resources. Many of the resources needed for our national security are found in Alaska as well. No one can seriously 

argue that Alaska is not unique in many ways, not the least of 

which is the abundance and diversity of its mineral resources that 

are found from one end of the state to the other. 

The Alaska Statutory Trilogy repeatedly has recognized that 

abundance. 

First, the Statehood Act granted to the state 104,000,000 acres 

of land selections. This is an area greater in size than the entire 

State of California but justification for such a significant grant was 

that due to our size, remoteness and sparse population Alaskans 

would need vast tracts of resource-rich land to develop and support 

its residents. 

Second, the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act in settling long 

standing land claims afforded indigenous people a commercial paradigm for generating cash revenue independent of the public treasury. The settlement included 44,000,000 acres in land selections 

which selections frequently were made with an eye towards resource development. 

And third, the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation 

Act (ANILCA) was adopted to ensure that the distinguished park 

areas, refuges, rivers and representative woodlands were afforded 

unique consideration without adversely impacting existing opportunities to develop the resources of the state. 

The Alaska Statutory Trilogy was adopted in the context of the 

respective contemporaneous organic mandates of the four major 

land managing agencies in Alaska. Accordingly, ANILCA, for instance, was consented to and adopted based upon the practices of 

the four agencies as they were interpreted in 1980. Thirty-five 

years later these agencies have aggressively evolved in ways that 

deny the people of Alaska their expressly intended benefits. 

When adopted ANILCA created numerous conservation systems 

which frequently surrounded privately held inholdings and allotments which were transected by trails and waterways customarily 

used for access through and across subsumed areas. Since passage 

the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. 

Forest Service have all imposed restrictions vitiating the utility of 

these holdings and access routes. 

At this time the Alaska Miners Association is calling for a corrective legislative action either in the form of a stand-alone bill or as 

amendments to other germane legislation to accomplish at least the 

following goals. 

First, the Organic Acts of the four land management agencies 

need to be amended to harmonize their requirements with the 

65 

Alaska Statutory Trilogy. I refer you to the expressed language of 

the Supreme Court of the United States and the Sturgeon v. Frost 

case which went on at great length to talk about how those two 

groups of statutes should be harmonized. 

Second, as a priority, ANILCA needs to be amended to provide 

a clear, Alaska-specific definition of what constitutes a withdrawal 

in connection with land management plans in Alaska. 

Third, the Alaska Land Use Council which was created by Title 

12 of ANILCA to facilitate coordination between the State of Alaska and the four federal land management agencies should/needs to 

be reconstituted to ensure that the four land management agencies 

have adequate oversight with regard to Alaska-specific land management activities. 

Fourth, public land orders that have been recommended to the 

Secretary for revocation have not been acted on. They should be revoked by statutory action now. 

Fifth, RS2477 rights-of-way need to be conveyed to the State by 

statute. RS2477 is self-enacting. It does not require any action by 

the Department of the Interior or by anybody else and certainly 

does not need to be processed through the Four Organic Acts, and 

so those grants should be implemented right away. 

The State of Alaska has identified a bunch of those RS2477’s and 

those found at A.S. 19.30.400 should be now granted by statute including 50 feet on either side of the center line description and adequate provisions for adequate borrow bits. 

And sixth, the submerged lands in Alaska which belong to Alaska according to the Statehood Act should also be recognized by 

statute. We got those submerged lands on account of the Statehood 

Act, but the Department of the Interior has resisted the conveyance 

because of the definition of what constitutes navigable waters. 

There has been already some law that’s been developed in that 

case on that matter and essentially what definition that’s been 

agreed to, at least in one instance, is a body of water that would 

float a raft that contains a 1,000-pound load. That’s a perfectly 

good definition, and that ought to be in statute. If it can support 

a 1,000-pound load on water in Alaska, it ought to be deemed navigable. Period, end of story. 

Madam Chairman, this concludes my recommendations of the 

Alaska Miners Association at this time. We appreciate the opportunity to present these requests to you and stand ready to assist 

in your efforts to ensure that Alaska’s mining industry remains 

strong for the benefit of the state and for the security of the nation. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tangen follows:] 

66 


Insert offset folio 113 here 21970A.039
67 


Insert offset folio 114 here 21970A.040
68 


Insert offset folio 115 here 21970A.041
69 


Insert offset folio 116 here 21970A.042
70 


Insert offset folio 117 here 21970A.043
71 


Insert offset folio 118 here 21970A.044
72 


Insert offset folio 119 here 21970A.045
73 


Insert offset folio 120 here 21970A.046
74 


Insert offset folio 121 here 21970A.047
75 


Insert offset folio 122 here 21970A.048
76 


Insert offset folio 123 here 21970A.049
77 


Insert offset folio 124 here 21970A.050
78 


Insert offset folio 125 here 21970A.051
79 


Insert offset folio 126 here 21970A.052
80 


Insert offset folio 127 here 21970A.053
81 


Insert offset folio 128 here 21970A.054
82 


Insert offset folio 129 here 21970A.055
83 


Insert offset folio 130 here 21970A.056
84 


Insert offset folio 131 here 21970A.057
85 


Insert offset folio 132 here 21970A.058
86 


Insert offset folio 133 here 21970A.059
87 


Insert offset folio 134 here 21970A.060
88 


Insert offset folio 135 here 21970A.061
89 


Insert offset folio 136 here 21970A.062
90 


Insert offset folio 137 here 21970A.063
91 


Insert offset folio 138 here 21970A.064
92 


Insert offset folio 139 here 21970A.065
93 


Insert offset folio 140 here 21970A.066
94 


Insert offset folio 141 here 21970A.067
95 


Insert offset folio 142 here 21970A.068
96 


Insert offset folio 143 here 21970A.069
97 


Insert offset folio 144 here 21970A.070
98 


Insert offset folio 145 here 21970A.071
99 


Insert offset folio 146 here 21970A.072
100 


Insert offset folio 147 here 21970A.073
101 


Insert offset folio 148 here 21970A.074
102 


Insert offset folio 149 here 21970A.075
103 


Insert offset folio 150 here 21970A.076
104 


Insert offset folio 151 here 21970A.077
105 


Insert offset folio 152 here 21970A.078
106 


Insert offset folio 153 here 21970A.079
107 


Insert offset folio 154 here 21970A.080
108 


Insert offset folio 155 here 21970A.081
109 


Insert offset folio 156 here 21970A.082
110 


Insert offset folio 157 here 21970A.083
111 


Insert offset folio 158 here 21970A.084
112 


Insert offset folio 159 here 21970A.085
113 


Insert offset folio 160 here 21970A.086
114 


Insert offset folio 161 here 21970A.087
115 


Insert offset folio 162 here 21970A.088
116 


Insert offset folio 163 here 21970A.089
117 


Insert offset folio 164 here 21970A.090
118 


Insert offset folio 165 here 21970A.091
119 


Insert offset folio 166 here 21970A.092
120 


Insert offset folio 167 here 21970A.093
121 


Insert offset folio 168 here 21970A.094
122 


Insert offset folio 169 here 21970A.095
123 


Insert offset folio 170 here 21970A.096
124 


Insert offset folio 171 here 21970A.097
125 


Insert offset folio 172 here 21970A.098
126 


Insert offset folio 173 here 21970A.099
127 


Insert offset folio 174 here 21970A.100
128 


Insert offset folio 175 here 21970A.101
129 


Insert offset folio 176 here 21970A.102
130 


Insert offset folio 177 here 21970A.103
131 


Insert offset folio 178 here 21970A.104
132 


Insert offset folio 179 here 21970A.105
133 


Insert offset folio 180 here 21970A.106
134 


Insert offset folio 181 here 21970A.107
135 


Insert offset folio 182 here 21970A.108
136 


Insert offset folio 183 here 21970A.109
137 


Insert offset folio 184 here 21970A.110
138 


Insert offset folio 185 here 21970A.111
139 


Insert offset folio 186 here 21970A.112
140 


Insert offset folio 187 here 21970A.113
141 


Insert offset folio 188 here 21970A.114
142 


Insert offset folio 189 here 21970A.115
143 


Insert offset folio 190 here 21970A.116
144 


Insert offset folio 191 here 21970A.117
145 


Insert offset folio 192 here 21970A.118
146 


Insert offset folio 193 here 21970A.119
147 


Insert offset folio 194 here 21970A.120
148 


Insert offset folio 195 here 21970A.121
149 


Insert offset folio 196 here 21970A.122
150 


Insert offset folio 197 here 21970A.123
151 


Insert offset folio 198 here 21970A.124
152 


Insert offset folio 199 here 21970A.125
153 


Insert offset folio 200 here 21970A.126
154 


Insert offset folio 201 here 21970A.127
155 


Insert offset folio 202 here 21970A.128
156 


Insert offset folio 203 here 21970A.129
157 


Insert offset folio 204 here 21970A.130
158 


Insert offset folio 205 here 21970A.131
159 


Insert offset folio 206 here 21970A.132
160 


Insert offset folio 207 here 21970A.133
161 


Insert offset folio 208 here 21970A.134
162 


Insert offset folio 209 here 21970A.135
163 


Insert offset folio 210 here 21970A.136
164 


Insert offset folio 211 here 21970A.137
165 


Insert offset folio 212 here 21970A.138
166 


Insert offset folio 213 here 21970A.139
167 


Insert offset folio 214 here 21970A.140
168 


Insert offset folio 215 here 21970A.141
169 


Insert offset folio 216 here 21970A.142
170 


Insert offset folio 217 here 21970A.143
171 


Insert offset folio 218 here 21970A.144
172 


Insert offset folio 219 here 21970A.145
173 


Insert offset folio 220 here 21970A.146
174 


Insert offset folio 221 here 21970A.147
175 


Insert offset folio 222 here 21970A.148
176 


Insert offset folio 223 here 21970A.149
177 


Insert offset folio 224 here 21970A.150
178 


Insert offset folio 225 here 21970A.151
179 


Insert offset folio 226 here 21970A.152
180 


Insert offset folio 227 here 21970A.153
181 


Insert offset folio 228 here 21970A.154
182 


Insert offset folio 229 here 21970A.155
183 


Insert offset folio 230 here 21970A.156
184 


Insert offset folio 231 here 21970A.157
185 


Insert offset folio 232 here 21970A.158
186 


Insert offset folio 233 here 21970A.159
187 


Insert offset folio 234 here 21970A.160
188 


Insert offset folio 235 here 21970A.161
189 


Insert offset folio 236 here 21970A.162
190 


Insert offset folio 237 here 21970A.163
191 


Insert offset folio 238 here 21970A.164
192 


Insert offset folio 239 here 21970A.165
193 


Insert offset folio 240 here 21970A.166
194 


Insert offset folio 241 here 21970A.167
195 


Insert offset folio 242 here 21970A.168
196 


Insert offset folio 243 here 21970A.169
197 


Insert offset folio 244 here 21970A.170
198 


Insert offset folio 245 here 21970A.171
199 


Insert offset folio 246 here 21970A.172
200 


Insert offset folio 247 here 21970A.173
201 


Insert offset folio 248 here 21970A.174
202 


Insert offset folio 249 here 21970A.175
203 


Insert offset folio 250 here 21970A.176
204 


Insert offset folio 251 here 21970A.177
205 


Insert offset folio 252 here 21970A.178
206 


Insert offset folio 253 here 21970A.179
207 


Insert offset folio 254 here 21970A.180
208 


Insert offset folio 255 here 21970A.181
209 


Insert offset folio 256 here 21970A.182
210 


Insert offset folio 257 here 21970A.183
211 


Insert offset folio 258 here 21970A.184
212 


Insert offset folio 259 here 21970A.185
213 


Insert offset folio 260 here 21970A.186
214 


Insert offset folio 261 here 21970A.187
215 


Insert offset folio 262 here 21970A.188
216 


Insert offset folio 263 here 21970A.189
217 


Insert offset folio 264 here 21970A.190
218 


Insert offset folio 265 here 21970A.191
219 


Insert offset folio 266 here 21970A.192
220 


Insert offset folio 267 here 21970A.193
221 


Insert offset folio 268 here 21970A.194
222 


Insert offset folio 269 here 21970A.195
223 


Insert offset folio 270 here 21970A.196
224 


Insert offset folio 271 here 21970A.197
225 


Insert offset folio 272 here 21970A.198
226 


Insert offset folio 273 here 21970A.199
227 


Insert offset folio 274 here 21970A.200
228 


Insert offset folio 275 here 21970A.201
229 


Insert offset folio 276 here 21970A.202
230 


Insert offset folio 277 here 21970A.203
231 


Insert offset folio 278 here 21970A.204
232 


Insert offset folio 279 here 21970A.205
233 


Insert offset folio 280 here 21970A.206
234 


Insert offset folio 281 here 21970A.207
235 


Insert offset folio 282 here 21970A.208
236 


Insert offset folio 283 here 21970A.209
237 


Insert offset folio 284 here 21970A.210
238 


Insert offset folio 285 here 21970A.211
239 


Insert offset folio 286 here 21970A.212
240 


Insert offset folio 287 here 21970A.213
241 


Insert offset folio 288 here 21970A.214
242 


Insert offset folio 289 here 21970A.215
243 


Insert offset folio 290 here 21970A.216
244 


Insert offset folio 291 here 21970A.217
245 


Insert offset folio 292 here 21970A.218
246 


Insert offset folio 293 here 21970A.219
247 


Insert offset folio 294 here 21970A.220
248 


Insert offset folio 295 here 21970A.221
249 


Insert offset folio 296 here 21970A.222
250 


Insert offset folio 297 here 21970A.223
251 


Insert offset folio 298 here 21970A.224
252 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Tangen. I appreciate the very 

concrete proposals here, and they will be a springboard for our conversation here. 

To the last panel I asked a general question—areas that we 

might look to that are currently holding us back as Alaskans in accessing our resources. That panel was focused on oil and gas opportunities and access to our lands. 

We are now looking at mining and recognizing the amazing potential that we have in Alaska for the elements that are buried 

here. While we have a lot of focus on coal coming out of Usibelli 

and gold coming out the Fortymile District, our reality is that here 

in Alaska our mineral resources are extraordinary and world-class. 

While we think about the vulnerability that we had as a nation 

when we were so heavily reliant on imports for oil coming in from 

nations that did not really like us and we always talked about that 

great vulnerability, that has changed dramatically as we have figured out how to access more of our oil and natural gas potential. 

But our reality is that when it comes to our minerals we are moving in the same direction that we were with oil and natural gas 

being more and more reliant on others for elements that are necessary and critical to our daily lives. I am wandering around with 

a smart phone as are you. Any one of us that want to support and 

move out on renewable energy sources, if you are interested in 

more wind turbines, you have got to have those minerals that go 

into the component pieces of that wind energy turbine. 

So focusing on minerals and mining, I think, is not only important from a jobs and access to resources perspective, but it is also 

important from that security perspective. That was, I think, your 

final line, Mr. Tangen. 

So the question to each of you. In addition to what you have already mentioned, concerns about the mitigation proposal, concerns 

about the stream buffer rule, concerns about what we are seeing 

with ACECs and these, kind of, pseudo withdrawals, how can we 

be doing more to allow Alaska the opportunity to achieve its full 

potential when accessing our mineral resources? 

It was Mr. Marushack who said, ‘‘It’s not so much the regulations, it’s the interpretation and the unpredictability of the regulations.’’ Do you agree with that or is it the regulations? So if we can 

just start the conversation off this way, and Mr. Jeffress we will 

begin with you. 

Mr. JEFFRESS. I think Joe is absolutely correct on this. One of 

the things we have seen is the regulated industry can adapt to the 

regulations, but it’s this ever-changing re-interpretation. 

One of the biggest issues is the fact that objectivity in the regulatory agencies is a thing of the past. We have this subjective climate where individual biologists can nominate ACECs and the 

group that reviews that nomination area peers within the agencies. 

I mean, there’s other criteria on the Corps of Engineers, not to pick 

on them, but with some of the other cooperating agencies, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries, the objectivity is a thing of the past. It is very frustrating because I came 

to Alaska to permit the Fort Knox mine, and it was ten years from 

discovery to production. That is a thing of the past right now too, 

253 

and a lot of it is not because the regulations have changed. It is 

because the interpretation of those regulations have changed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Bronk, do you agree with that? 

Mr. JORGENSEN. I would agree with that when we just look at 

these two piles. The old ones and what is being proposed, especially 

from a small operation. When you have big companies saying they 

cannot keep up how is a family operation supposed to keep up with 

reading this? 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you speak to that a moment because in your 

written testimony you move to the one-size-fits-all and it doesn’t 

make a difference if it is a mom-and-pop placer miner operation on 

the Fortymile or whether it is a large-scale mining effort. It basically is a one-size-fits-all approach. 

Mr. JORGENSEN. Correct, and it is also all-50-states-approachfits-all. 

I think the Sturgeon case made a good point that Alaska is 

unique and different. And you know, ANILCA was supposed to 

help us with that. 

There is also a law called the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act which agencies are supposed to look at how 

these regulations will affect small operators compared to big operators. For the most part that’s not being done, but it is required. So 

they need to be looking at both sides, but they are not. 

When you look at federal mining claims in Alaska in the 

Fortymile since withdrawals have taken place, in the Fortymile 

there have been no open stakes. At the time of withdrawal all valid 

claims that had discovery were valid and could be mined. Now 

BLM, if you want to change your plan or go mine a claim that does 

not have an old plan, they are going to require you to do a mineral 

validity exam, about $60,000 a claim. And if they do not deem that 

there is enough mineral there, by their opinion, they are going to 

take it away and you lose the claim. And that is wrong. 

You know, when the withdrawals took place in the Scenic River 

corridors, they went around existing valid claims but BLM has 

blanketed over. So the expense—the government can contest the 

claim if they do not believe it is valid but they have to pay for it, 

not the individual miner. 

This is becoming a big issue with reclamation also. Our plans, 

most plans, have an acreage limit. You mine some ground. You 

keep going up the creek. You reclaim the background. If BLM will 

not sign off on your reclamation you eventually run out of acres 

and you are out of business. You’re going to have to wait until, in 

essence, the willows grow. 

If you look at creeks that have been mined you can see that stuff 

is going to grow. You can see that it is going to happen. But BLM, 

at this point, is developing this new REM policy. They spent a 

bunch of money on Jack Wade Creek developing it, and this is not 

regulation, this is just in-house policy that is come about with instructional memoranda. A few weeks ago they just released it. Now 

they are doing re-vegetation standards also. 

The CHAIRMAN. So it is not just the regulation, it is not just statute, it is guidance, it is guidelines that effectively come up and—— 

Mr. JORGENSEN. Correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. Grab you from behind. 

254 

Mr. JORGENSEN. The way we see it is BLM employees have to follow those policies. It isn’t the law. We do not have to follow it, yet 

that is the policy so they will not sign off on reclamation work. 

When I asked for reclamation on Franklin Gulch to be signed off 

on it took two years for a response. Part was granted, part was not, 

and there is no definite time period. There is nothing. 

BLM stated that the Wade Creek Demonstration Project would 

not be used as a policy and a standard. Yesterday I was given a 

decision BLM issued on some other reclamation for another miner 

in the Fortymile that specifically referenced the Wade Creek reclamation job as to how it should be done. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, they told us it was not going to be used that 

way. 

Let me ask you, Lorali, you are coming from a company that is 

73, close to 75 years old, an operation of bigger mining, but with 

the same set of concerns when it comes to the interpretation of the 

regulations. You have also cited very specifically that the Stream 

Protection Rule is a rule that would effectively wipe out Usibelli’s 

operation of mining in Alaska. I think those were your words. 

Ms. SIMON. Yeah, truly it’s a mess out there, and I mean the federal regulatory world. 

It is true that in order for any of us to do our jobs we need a 

stable regulatory environment. We just want to know what the 

rules are so that we can play by the rules. But the problem is that 

you have Congress who enacts legislation and then you have these 

agencies who are, in essence, rewriting the rules of the game, in 

our opinion, unlawfully. And so, it makes it very difficult for our 

industry to survive when there is so much uncertainty, and it really is becoming just death by a thousand cuts. 

I forget what the figure is, but in the first few years of this Administration there were more federal regulations passed than all of 

the history of the United States combined. I mean, it just became 

an absolute onslaught of a new way of creating the business environment in this country. And so, you know, I talked about the 

Stream Protection Rule. That is certainly under your Committee’s 

purview, but also the Waters of the United States, everybody in 

this room should be concerned about that. It will affect every single 

development project in this country, not just mining but construction, your personal home construction, large construction projects, 

the oil and gas industry. 

And so, we certainly appreciate your attention to that. That is 

something that you worked on, quite hard on. But yeah, I mean, 

really, it is just an onslaught every day of what is coming next. 

And again, isn’t this process a public process where elected officials are creating new rules? I am quite confident this did not come 

across your desk for a signature, right? So this is not being reviewed by our elected officials. It is being created. 

The CHAIRMAN. J.P., do you want to weigh in here? 

Mr. TANGEN. Yes, Senator. 

I hope to weigh in with a proposal that may be at least a partial 

solution and that goes to the point that I made in my testimony, 

and that is that the Alaska Land Use Council should be reconstituted. 

255 

I remind you that in 1980 when ANILCA was passed, Section 

1201 set up the Alaska Land Use Council and it consisted of the 

federal land managing agencies plus the representative of the 

President of the United States, one of the co-chairman and the 

state counterpart to each of these agencies plus the Governor of 

Alaska as the other co-chairman. It was primarily in 1201, it was 

provided that the Land Use Council would be reconsidered in 1990. 

In 1990 the Land Use Council unanimously recommended to your 

Committee, this Committee, that the Land Use Council not be sunsetted. 

Nonetheless, this Committee and the Congress of the United 

States elected to allow it to disappear. Now, though, the Land Use 

Council essentially was a forum for coordinating the impact of regulations by the land use, the federal land management agencies, 

with the needs of the State of Alaska. And it was an opportunity 

for us to, we in Alaska, to want to have a voice in what was going 

to happen in regulations and recommendations, and activities that 

impacted federal lands had to be agreed to by the Council. 

We need to reinstate that Council. It is a priority, and I think 

that it would go a long way in addressing many of the issues that 

were addressed today. At least we would have state influence at a 

significant level on some of these regulations. These regulatory 

burdens, I mean. Bronk and Bill and others have made the point. 

They are outrageous, absolutely outrageous. I have clients cross my 

office who could not possibly begin to move the first yard of gravel 

at the placer mining operation if they had to sit down and read 

every word of the regulatory requirements that impact them. It literally is putting my clients and other people like them out of business. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would certainly, certainly, agree that when you 

think about those that are just out there on the creek trying to 

make a living, they are not going home at the end of a long, hard 

day and sifting through these regs or the CFRs to see what is coming their way. 

I also think that from the agency perspective, and we do not 

have anyone from the agencies that are testifying today. We will 

have an opportunity for that, hopefully, at another hearing. But in 

terms of what is now being required of your placer miners out 

there, Bronk, whether or not BLM has the resources, the technical 

expertise, to review and to issue all of these placer miner permits 

in a timely manner. So you have got on the one hand the miner 

not being able to keep up with it, but you also have the agency that 

has now put on themselves all this additional work. They cannot 

get to it, so it slows you up and you get to what Lorali has said, 

a mess, just a general mess. 

I want to ask each of you about this Presidential Memorandum 

on Mitigation. We held a hearing in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee three weeks ago now, and we received 

good insight and testimony on that. 

The concern that has been raised is that this is not just something that will impact our public lands. I think it was you, Bill, 

that mentioned it will affect development on private lands, on our 

Native Corporation lands as well. 

256 

Can any of you speculate what these additional mitigation requirements might do? We all recognize the uncertainty that it 

brings, but what might this do to the investment climate because 

it is pretty tough to get out there and gauge in much beyond a 

very, very, small operation if there is no investment for your operation. What do you think that this is going to be doing to the investment climate? Bill. 

Mr. JEFFRESS: Well I think that, first of all, the uncertainty even 

with the Corps of Engineers right now with the compensatory mitigation. Until they put the 1994 Alaska Wetlands Initiative back in 

the tool box, there is tremendous uncertainty on what it was going 

to cost. You have to figure that into the economics of your project. 

What this adds now is that every one of the federal agencies 

named in the Memorandum that has any part in authorization or 

issuing a permit can now issue or demand additional mitigation 

and whether avoidance and minimization takes care of that problem. Most unlikely that it will not. We have seen some of the endangered species where they have taken large land areas in the 

lower 48 with the sage grouse, and we have the same potential 

that is happening up here. 

What is critical on this is the Corps of Engineers met the intent 

of Congress with the Clean Water Act and potential mitigation. 

Now you have all these other agencies jumping on top of it and 

their regulations are not written yet. We do not know what their 

programs are going to be. Would you invest in a project in Alaska 

with that much uncertainty? 

It is scary for us. This is a perfect storm between low oil prices, 

low metal prices and a timber industry that is nonexistent anymore. 

The CHAIRMAN. Have any of the agencies that are outlined in the 

Memorandum, have they released any statements? Have they communicated in any way how they will either implement or enforce 

any of the mitigation requirements? Has there been any back and 

forth, any engagement with the agencies on this mitigation memorandum? 

Mr. JEFFRESS. The only feedback that I have had personally is 

that the draft mitigation policy that the Bureau of Land Management has implemented as a draft, is the template for the other 

agencies to use which scares the hell out of me. 

The CHAIRMAN. But there was no input to BLM? 

Mr. JEFFRESS. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. From anybody here in Alaska. 

Lorali. 

Ms. SIMON. No, I do not think so. But it is also important to remember how much of Alaska is already under federal jurisdiction. 

And so to try to find land available for compensatory mitigation is 

going to get increasingly more difficult. 

That right there is an excellent answer to your question of what 

does it do to the investment climate. Again, it is just an enormous 

amount of uncertainty. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the clear things that we heard in the testimony before the full Committee was that you have different agencies with an interpretation as to different terminology, different imVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00262 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
257 

plementation, different standards, and again, just further uncertainty and really, outright contradiction at times. 

I wanted to ask, and this is probably best to you, Lorali, regarding the federal/state relationship. Can you give me your view on 

the relationship between the Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation 

Enforcement and the State of Alaska? The concern that I have here 

is that we have got our state operation. 

Ms. SIMON. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we have Interior over here and what is happening at the state level is basically being smothered. 

Ms. SIMON. So off the record I may have a different answer. 

[Laughter.] 

But on the record I would say that the State of Alaska has been 

very strong, particularly on WOTUS as well as on SPR. 

The previous Parnell Administration as well as Governor Walker, 

they have been very strong on trying to stand up for states’ rights 

and personally with the coal program and the Stream Protection 

Rule, this very small division within the Department of Natural 

Resources has an amazing resource talent in their people. They 

have been able to help a lot of us miners better understand even 

the Stream Protection Rule at the scientific level. 

So with that kind of support I see it working properly in that the 

people who are on the ground, you know, the coal program manager, his direct reports, who are the investigators for our mine. 

They have been working with OSM to try to break down the rule 

and really explain how it just does not work in Alaska. 

It, again, is this one-size-fits-all approach. What may work fine 

in Appalachia just does not work in Alaska. For example, we cannot collect 12 months of water samples, right? Because when it is 

frozen. 

The CHAIRMAN. The lake is frozen. [Laughter.] 

Ms. SIMON. Yeah. 

And so like that type of thing where even this nullification clause 

of at any point, at any time, OSM could come in and just decide 

that the permit is not valid and pull our permit. Well, this could 

be 5, 10, 15, 35 years after we have been mining under this permit, 

and so then we would be held liable for basically operating illegally 

up to that point when they deemed the permit nullified. So that 

type of uncertainty, you are like, well how could that possibly even 

work? I mean, whose idea was this? 

So, yes, I guess, I am sorry. My short answer to your question 

is I believe the State of Alaska is standing very strong in their 

working relationship with OSM, particularly on the Stream Protection Rule. 

The CHAIRMAN. The last question is directed to you, Mr. Tangen, 

and you raised the Sturgeon case. We just saw the Supreme Court 

come out and get back to the Ninth, but there was some good, 

strong language in that case that recognized the role of ANILCA 

and the balance that was found in ANILCA. 

I am going to ask you to speculate a little bit about how the 

Sturgeon decision can affect the issues that we are talking about 

here today with regard to accessing our resources. 

258 

You outlined some specific proposals for the Committee to consider, but given the direction that we saw laid down by the Court, 

how do you feel that this will impact us, if at all? 

Mr. TANGEN. One has to speculate, obviously. But I think that 

if one reads the last few pages of this Sturgeon opinion, and I recommend the opinion to everybody who is interested in the subject 

because it is not very long but it is very powerful, the last few 

pages of the Sturgeon opinion, among other things in the remand 

to the Ninth Circuit, calls the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation topsyturvy. I think that that says a mouthful because to the extent that 

eight justices on the Supreme Court in a unanimous court signed 

off on that opinion and that language and that has to be a mandate 

to the federal agencies in Alaska that they need to take another 

look when they are permitting the land managing organic acts, 

when they are charged with essential responsibility. 

They have got to look at the implementation of the Land Management Act whether it is running out and using a hovercraft on 

the Nation River or almost any other question that comes up. And 

there are questions of access and whether something is a withdrawal, et cetera, that come up on a fairly regular basis in the 

courts in this state. They have got to take another look at it almost 

to ensure that these interpretations are viewed through the prism 

of what I refer to as, Alaska Statutory Trilogy. 

It is an important giant step forward. I guess maybe I am more 

than a little bit optimistic by suggesting that the agencies and the 

Federal District Courts will follow the clear guidance of the United 

States Supreme Court. But, you know, hope springs eternal. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, I appreciate that. 

With the first and the second panels we have been talking about 

our resources in the ground, oil and gas and coal and mining. Our 

third panel that we will turn to now is related to that human resource and the potential. 

I have just listed a couple of the examples that have been presented today in terms of the size of how or what we access. You 

mentioned, Bronk, that placer mining within the Fortymile District, the oldest district, 118 years, when you bring it all together 

it is about the size of an Iowa farm. 

When we talk about the area in ANWR that we would like to be 

able to develop, one of the analogies that we use is the size of Dulles Airport right outside of Washington, DC. Joe Marushack mentioned that impacted areas within all of the NPRA is 0.0008 percent. 

Within the Tongass National Forest, our largest national forest, 

the fact that with all of the decades of harvesting within that forest, the percent that has actually been harvested in forested areas 

is still hovering right around four percent. 

When you think about our state, the size, the scope, the assets 

that we have and what it is that we are trying to access, it really 

is a pretty small standard. But we recognize that even if it is just 

these small areas, we still access them responsibly and with the 

care for that environmental stewardship. 

We will now turn to our third panel to discuss the human resources, and that is our Alaskan workforce. 

259 

So thank you. [Applause.] 

[Recess.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Alright. We are back with our third and final 

panel. As I mentioned, this is the panel to look at all of our human 

resources and the job that is underway to ensure that as we access 

Alaska’s resources for the benefit of Alaskans that we have trained 

and a skilled workforce. 

The panel this afternoon will be led off by Vince Beltrami, who 

is the President of the Alaska AFL–CIO. Thank you for being here. 

He will be followed by Lisa Herbert, who is the President and 

CEO for the Greater Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. Lisa is not 

having to travel very far. 

But having to travel even a shorter distance is Chad Hutchinson, 

who is head of the Pipeline Training Center. Again, thank you for 

opening your doors to us all here today. 

Kevin Pomeroy will wrap up the panel. Kevin is the Business 

Manager for Laborers Local 942. 

Thank you to all of you for being here and for joining us. We will 

begin with Mr. Beltrami. 

Go ahead, Vince. 

STATEMENT OF VINCE BELTRAMI, PRESIDENT, ALASKA AFL– 

CIO 

Mr. BELTRAMI. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for the invitation to be here. 

I did submit some prepared written testimony but as I have listened to the discussion here this morning it has, kind of, shifted 

to where I thought I would focus on a little bit. So that means I 

might ad lib a little and hopefully can stay within my five minutes. 

But I can—the part about what we do in terms of training and 

how that, maybe I’ll be able to circle back to that before we are 

done. 

I wanted to start off with something you mentioned earlier in response to the President’s visit when you said that I would say consider me part of the ‘‘team ironic’’ also. We believe that you can do 

responsible resource development and be conservationists at the 

same time, and we have many, many years’ record of doing that 

in the State of Alaska. 

Alaska is always called the Last Frontier. I think the Arctic is, 

kind of, that final frontier that we have to look at with more potential, economic benefit to Alaskans and to the Federal Government, 

actually, if we could work on what I heard were the huge challenges of the previous two panels making sure that the permitting 

is streamlined and the processes work so that we can put Alaskans 

to work. 

Resource jobs have meant a huge amount to Alaskans, particularly to the members that I represent. We have about 60,000 members in the state. About half of those come out of the building 

trades and a big chunk of those learned most of their training 

many years ago on the initial construction of the Trans-Alaska 

Pipeline System. 

That was a big, probably the largest job constructed in North 

America. It was done under a project labor agreement meaning 

that it was done in connection with the best training systems that 

260 

exist for building trades folks in the world. I think that is our joint 

apprenticeship and training committees that we have. 

But a generation of workers were training on that job and on 

other jobs, and those folks are retiring in droves right now. The one 

thing that I kind of wanted to shift to on my testimony that is not 

in what I submitted was that what the state is facing in terms of 

challenges, financially. I have been going around the state doing 

other presentations, dealing with the state budget. Up until about 

a year ago or so, 90 percent of the state’s revenues came from what 

flowed through that pipe. Right now, of course, we are experiencing 

a huge downturn in those prices, and the oil industry is only providing about 20 percent of the revenue needed to balance our budget that passed last year. So the opportunities that exist are not 

going to be coming from the state’s coffers right now. 

We just had the smallest state capital budget in the last 15 years 

last year, and that was only what we had to put up to meet the 

federal match requirements. So we do not have the $2, $3 billion 

budgets that we have had over the past several years as a result 

of oil and gas exploration development and what has flowed 

through the pipe. 

But now we have an opportunity. We have to look forward to infrastructure development in the Arctic, on oil and gas, natural resources. The Arctic is going to be that next. We already have everybody heading up there. Russia is heading over there. Everyone is 

heading to the Arctic and staking their claim and we have to be 

prepared to do that. 

Not only do we need to do more responsible resource development, we have got to build infrastructure. I mentioned to you when 

I saw you in the airport, you know, I want to see a Coast Guard 

base built. We need to have a deep water port that can handle that 

maritime commerce that Admiral Barrett spoke to earlier today. 

There are all kinds of opportunities. Most of them are going to 

be in the Arctic, and that is where we think the greatest potential 

for economic stimulation exists. 

So I will speak just specifically to what we do and how we train 

in the union-based apprenticeship programs. We have been doing 

it in the state for about 70 plus years. We spend and we mostly 

pay for that ourselves. There is $11 million a year, roughly, that 

we have negotiated that is union employers with the union sitting 

at the table negotiating contributions that go towards funding our 

training programs, somewhere, usually, between $0.75 and $2 an 

hour out of the wage and benefit package goes into raise that 

money to pay for our students, to get them educated, to get them 

hands-on training and classroom training and everything that goes 

along with creating some real skilled craftspeople. 

And we have over $30 million in infrastructure in the state. Not 

including this facility which actually my predecessor, Jim Sampson, talked me into taking this job so that he could come here and 

build this facility. Just a little while ago before we started I was 

sitting in one of the classroom just going over notes and stuff and 

just looking around in there at all the personal protective equipment, the gear, the safety stuff and thinking, I sure hope we can 

fill these classrooms with Alaskans because we are positioned to do 

261 

this, to partner with our union-based apprenticeship programs and 

anyone else that wants to come to the table. 

I think the Pipeline Training Center is a great example of where 

we work with our union-based apprenticeship programs but also 

with the university and places like Av Tech and things like that. 

There is a great training infrastructure, I think, built in Alaska. 

We have the ability to ramp up our training as we need or ramp 

it down as the economy dictates; however, we do not want to end 

up where we ended up back in the mid to late 80’s. We built the 

pipeline and then we went into a recession. We lost tons of folks 

that we had trained to do that work who left. Luckily there was 

a lot of work that has come up through the 90’s into the 2000’s that 

have been a lot of work that has been vibrant, kept our members 

working. 

I think that is one of the biggest challenges. We know that these 

investments in the Arctic that we are looking at, whether it is gas 

lines or pipelines or ports or Coast Guard bases or any of those 

things, they take several years to get going. 

We are at a time in this state’s financial picture where we do not 

have the state able to provide projects to get people trained for 

those projects that will be getting started, the big projects, a few 

years down the road. So it is a real critical time that we look at 

whether it is G.O. bonds for the state to get projects on the books 

that we can train people on, whether it is federal spending, whether it is private investment spending. We stand ready to work with 

all comers in making sure that we can meet the need as we have 

been able to demonstrate what we have been able to do over the 

last several decades in the state. 

So, thank you for the opportunity, and I look forward to any follow up questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Beltrami follows:] 

262 


Insert offset folio 326 here 21970A.225
263 


Insert offset folio 327 here 21970A.226
264 


Insert offset folio 328 here 21970A.227
265 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Vince. 

Lisa Herbert, thank you for being here. 

STATEMENT OF LISA HERBERT, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

GREATER FAIRBANKS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 

Ms. HERBERT. Yeah, good afternoon. As you said, I am the President and the CEO of the Fairbanks Chamber of Commerce. We are 

a business advocacy organization currently representing over 750 

businesses right now, all shapes, all sizes, all industries and they 

employ thousands of hard working Alaskans. 

While we tend to focus on local and state policies, we are mindful 

of the federal impact to the Interior, and Alaskans are both interested and adapted opportunities to responsibly develop those natural resources that are essential to maintaining and growing our 

sustainable economy. 

However, history has shown when government interferes with 

the decisions or jobs best completed by the private sector or imposes rules or regulations that are technologically or economically 

infeasible to implement, those opportunities are squandered. And 

as a result Alaskans suffer. While some of the laws and regulations 

have been formed with good intentions, their reach and complexity 

have extended to the absurd. 

My written comments are much more in depth here. I want to 

thank some of the members that helped frame some of my comments here today. I do not serve in any of those industries, but we 

have lots of members that benefit through the work of resource development here in the way of indirect jobs. And so, allowing them 

to, kind of, provide some comments for me to be able to pass along 

to you was really important. So thanks for that opportunity. 

So a few of the comments that I had received from my members, 

just to put on the record, painful examples that have stymied our 

economic development here include additional wetlands delineations and constraints, particularly where much of Alaska is 

underlain by permafrost. As Lorali commented, rules that work 

across the United States may not work here in Alaska. 

The excessive requirements and evaluation procedures imposed 

when performing environmental impact statements have reached 

beyond the original statutory language and intentions and the 

EPA’s preemptive vote for the petal project before the permitting 

process had commenced on state land. 

The new BLM revegetation of wildlife habitat standards are anticipated to dramatically increase the effort and complications of 

work necessary to close out mining claims on federal lands. And I 

would mention this process was recently disclosed but developed to 

the point of approval without any involvement or input from the 

agencies in Alaska or the general public. 

The unduly frequent violations of the federal statehood compact, 

ANILCA, and just as the recent Sturgeon v. Frost case by the Supreme Court indicate that the Federal Government has gone too 

far. 

OSHA’s proposed silica standards for the construction industry 

will cost more than originally estimated and will therefore translate into significant job losses for this industry and the broader 

economy impacting many of our Chamber members in the supply 

266 

and equipment business as well as those in the non-construction 

sector. 

One of our members highlighted that they spent over six years 

in administrative and court procedures before they were able to get 

a final ruling on whether or not the Army Corps had jurisdiction 

over the development of the land they owned off Van Horn Road. 

Ultimately though, after years of litigation, they were able to proceed once the courts ruled in their favor but at a great cost to 

them. 

As was mentioned earlier, we are facing unprecedented low oil 

throughput in TAPS. Even worse, the drastic drop in the price per 

barrel of oil has dramatically affected our state’s budget. There is 

a significant amount of oil that has yet to be produced but due to 

delays in government and this has significantly impacted investment here in Alaska. 

An example including the permitting delays experienced by 

ConocoPhillips, CD–5 and GMT project, if that project had not been 

delayed our pipe yards and welding shops would have full parking 

lots of people, our supply stores would be fulfilling orders and we 

would have trucking companies hauling loads of freight up and 

down the roads. But instead, we are sitting here waiting, and we 

have just been told no. 

I do think that it is ironic that in a time when our economy is 

starving for work our government continues to delay forward 

progress. 

Certainly resolving the high cost of energy is high on our priority 

list, has been for a long time. However, the EPA Clean Power Plan 

will continue to be problematic for Alaska and the evident thesis 

of ‘‘dirty coal’’ standards stands contrary to the practical realities 

of our Interior electrical energy generation. The substantial increase in requirements and rules of the recent Stream Protection 

Rule magnifies and further complicates the coal mining needed in 

Alaska to produce our power. 

In short, the invention and imposition of many new requirements 

and federally-administered rules are, in fact, a steady shift away 

from state sovereignty and economic resource development. Business members are being told no and the finding that Federal Government seems to be more and more restrictive in their issuance 

of permits. 

Our state is facing some real economic hard times right now. 

Over the last eight years Fairbanks has missed out of a lot of local 

private investment simply because agencies are unwilling to apply 

common sense, real world scenarios or objective determinations and 

our lack of natural gas here in the Interior has really stymied some 

major private investment from large corporations. 

But what the agencies always seem to fail to understand, especially here in Alaska, is that time really is money. Every delay usually means an entire season is lost out due to our construction season, and the mitigation costs usually are enough to kill the 

projects, if not significantly delay them. 

The margin for many businesses in this community are thin, but 

they are willing to stay here. They are willing to invest, and they 

are committed to Alaska. 

267 

Today, on this panel, we have got business and labor represented. I think we are all just here asking for the opportunity to 

stay in business, get back to work and be assured that we are allowed to proceed making investments that make sense here in 

Alaska with some sort of certainty. 

We are a vital business community. We are dedicated to Alaska 

and its future. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to 

represent the voice of business here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Herbert follows:] 

268 


Insert offset folio 334 here 21970A.228
269 


Insert offset folio 335 here 21970A.229
270 


Insert offset folio 336 here 21970A.230
271 


Insert offset folio 337 here 21970A.231
272 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lisa, I appreciate it. 

Chad Hutchinson. 

STATEMENT OF CHAD HUTCHINSON, DIRECTOR, FAIRBANKS 

PIPELINE TRAINING CENTER 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. Thank you, Senator. 

I would like to start out and provide a brief overview of my background. I am a 25-year member of the Operating Engineers Local 

302. I am also a graduate of Local 302’s apprenticeship and training program. I spent the first 15 winters of my career on Alaska’s 

North Slope working for Crowley Maritime’s division, Catco, supporting Alaska’s producers in exploration all across the North 

Slope’s oil reserves and gas reserves. I have been from Camden 

Bay to Prudhoe Bay, the foothills of my folk’s ranch. In 2006 I became an Alaska Operating Engineer’s Apprenticeship and Training 

Coordinator for the Northern Region. 

In 2015 I was fortunate enough to be hired as the Director of the 

Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center. Our mission at the Fairbanks 

Pipeline Training Center is to train and develop Alaska’s oil and 

gas, mining, construction workforce. The training center is a fully 

integrated facility. It provides classroom and hands on training in 

the disciplines of cross country pipeline training, building and 

trades, process tech which is led by the University of Fairbanks 

Community Technical College. 

We collaborate with our training partners to deliver training to 

apprentices, high school and college students, transitioning military personnel and vets and students from Alaska’s numerous 

rural communities. 

The Training Center also has a linkage agreement with the Fairbanks North Star School District, the APJCC and other educational 

and training providers to execute workplace safety and on-the-job 

training with the specific goal of training the next generation of 

Alaska’s oil and gas, mining and construction workforce with an 

emphasis on legacy jobs. 

I would also like to mention that none of this could be possible 

without our partners, oil industry partners, labor, state, Federal 

Government, as well as industry. They have all come together to 

make this training center a reality. 

With so many people talking about the development of the natural gas pipeline coming together, partnerships, the cost of the 

pipeline, the challenges that lay ahead in these economic times, my 

concern is who is going to build it? Where are these people at? To 

have a skilled, productive and safe workforce takes years to develop. Young people starting in apprenticeship programs today will 

just be moving on to joining their careers in four to five years. It 

can take another five to ten years before they have the skill and 

experience they need to move into leadership roles if the opportunities are there. 

We have two work seasons in Alaska. Summer and Winter. Both 

can be a very short time to gain the experience needed to move into 

these positions. 

In the oil and gas, mining industry there is no single, four-week 

class that will give you everything you need to know on a career, 

in these careers. It is the time in the classroom and on the job that 

273 

creates a safe, skilled, experienced workforce with safety being a 

key factor. 

Workforce development and career exploration now will determine the success of a gas line in the years to come. This is a continuing investment that needs to increase double of what it is now. 

We need to recommit workforce development and career exploration with skilled trades now more than ever. 

We have been able to reach out statewide with career exploration 

opportunities. In return, people have had a chance and opportunity 

to work in their communities. Whether a gas line project develops 

or not, building a workforce is still needed today to maintain what 

is already in place now and other future products. 

I was once told the Trans-Alaska Pipeline was a home for the old 

and a school for the young. Those young people are now retiring 

and leaving the workforce everyday with history and knowledge 

that is not in a plans book or in a computer. It is this information 

that is passed on from Journeyman to Apprentice through the 

years of continuous workforce development. 

Thank you for giving me an opportunity to provide a short description of Fairbanks Pipeline Training Center and its value to 

Alaska oil and gas, mining, construction industries and residents. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hutchinson follows:] 

274 


Insert offset folio 343 here 21970A.232
275 


Insert offset folio 344 here 21970A.233
276 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Chad. 

Kevin Pomeroy, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN POMEROY, BUSINESS MANAGER/ 

SECRETARY-TREASURER, LABORERS’ LOCAL 942 

Mr. POMEROY. Thank you, Chairman Murkowski. 

My name is Kevin Pomeroy. I am the Business Manager of Laborers’ Local 942, and the Vice President of the Alaska District 

Council of Laborers. Serving in these roles I represent approximately 5,000 Alaskan Union members. 

These workers are vital to the fabric of Alaska involved in the 

construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, buildings, pipeline 

process facilities, pump stations, gathering centers, power plants, 

mines, maintenance, military facilities as well as workers in the 

private sector, tourism, manufacturing, facility maintenance and 

various other industry sectors. 

As a 47-year resident of the Interior of Alaska, halfway through 

my construction career, the emphasis has been on stemming the 

declining throughput. 

For the last decade as Business Representative of the North 

Slope and now Business Manager, I have attempted to stay active 

on issues surrounding new field opportunities, development and expansion of existing infrastructure for both the industry and the 

members I represent. 

You ask a traveling laborer that comes up to Alaska who controls 

most of Alaska’s lands, they may in error say the State of Alaska. 

But many of those same peers are shocked to learn that 61 percent 

of Alaska’s lands are controlled by the Federal Government. This 

leads to a significant amount of acreage and resources in Alaska 

which are off limits to resource production which means they are 

off limits to my members going to work on. 

Federal land is administered by five agencies: BLM, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife, National Park Service, and DOD is over 

223,000,000 acres. To put this into perspective this would be 5,753 

parcels of land all the same size of the District of Columbia or the 

entirety of both Texas and Utah. That is a tremendous amount of 

resources my members do not get an opportunity to work on. 

But why is it so important to folks like us who live and work 

here? We are a young state. We are probably one of the youngest 

with the exception of Hawaii. This means we are still primarily a 

blue collar state. We build things. We are still building things. Yet, 

control of 61 percent of lands within Alaska are those lands that 

are off limits to potential resource development. 

From a peak of 2,000,000 barrels per day running through TAPS 

in 1988 throughput, as we have heard from the Admiral, has 

slowed to 540,000 barrels per day and could reach its minimum operating level of 200,000 barrels per day sometime after 2020. This 

could be, should be concerning for someone that is just starting his 

construction career. 

The Alaska economy and its residents rely on the ability to develop natural resources on state and federal land. I do not support 

the drill, baby, drill, mentality because too many of my bounties 

that fill my freezer end up from within the state. But because I 

want wild Alaska game coming from healthy forests and grasslands 

277 

and my salmon from pristine clear waters, I strongly believe that 

all oil and gas development in Alaska should be planned, measured 

and well thought-out. 

As the gates were opening to the NPRA, ConocoPhillips applied 

for a permit for their Colville Delta CD–5 satellite development in 

2005. Due to the various government agencies voicing concern to 

justify their existence, it was over ten years to first oil on the development from the time the permit was applied for. It was ten 

years that my members got to wait. 

CD–5 was the first commercial oil production from the NPR, set 

aside for that purpose almost 93 years ago, and it is estimated to 

hold 800,000,000 barrels of oil. An additional 1.5 million acres were 

set aside in the 1980s because of its potential enormous oil and gas 

industry resources in the 10–02 area of ANWR. 

I am not going to engage in the political, ongoing media controversy over whether to drill for oil in ANWR; however, I would 

suggest that the minimum acreage needed for development would 

be the perfect opportunity for the oil industry, national defense 

agencies and the environmental communities to work closely together. Whether the United States, as a whole, is ready to admit 

it or not, development of the Arctic’s oil and gas resources is and 

will continue taking place. Alaska is the only reason the United 

States has a seat at the table. 

The near shore development of 10–02 or the offshore development potentials in the Chukchi and the Beaufort could be the new 

environmental gold standard for oil and gas development in the 

Arctic and the OCS. Imagine collaboration between the oil industries, national defense agencies and the environmental communities as Alaska and the United States show the rest of the Arctic 

nations what American technology and ingenuity can achieve. 

As the polar ice recedes, resource development and navigation 

both become technologically and economically feasible through the 

Northwest Passage connection between the Pacific and Atlantic 

Oceans. 

Let me switch gears just a little bit and talk about timber. I 

mean, it was timber that brought my family to Alaska from the forests of Northern Montana in 1969. It was timber that used to employ a large amount of my members down in Southeast Alaska. 

After the passage of the Tongass Timber Reform Act in 1990 the 

Forest Service had the authority to unilaterally modify the contracts on its last two long-term timber sales. It is no coincidence 

that timber sales went that year from 2,000 million board feet to 

about 100 million board feet by 2007. There is a local joke going 

around Alaska here that when the 2015 Christmas tree was chosen 

and harvested for the U.S. Capitol it doubled the annual harvest 

that came out of the Chugach National Forest. 

In closing I want to briefly address mining. It is hard to defend 

actions of the Federal Government and not make an argument on 

overreaching environmental enforcement when raids are being conducted out of helicopters with armed agents. It is even harder 

when a government agency is less than cooperative in a review of 

how the raid was conceived and executed. What kind of message 

does this send to the residents of Alaska? 

278 

As I sit before you today I feel the Federal Government repeatedly blocks development of Alaska’s most resource rich lands and 

waters. These are the same lands and waters that put many of my 

members to work. Alaska needs to be allowed to be the stewards 

of their resources, not bureaucracy 4,000 miles away. 

The last point I want to make in testimony has addressed the development of our natural resources. We have heard from a lot of 

industry, we have heard from some of the organizations that represent different industry, but the panel here represents some of the 

workers, some of the people who live in the Interior, people that 

it is not just a way of life for them, it is not just a living. But it 

is who they are. It is why they come to Alaska. 

Thanks for the opportunity to talk today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pomeroy follows:] 

279 


Insert offset folio 352 here 21970A.234
280 


Insert offset folio 353 here 21970A.235
281 


Insert offset folio 354 here 21970A.236
282 


Insert offset folio 355 here 21970A.237
283 


Insert offset folio 356 here 21970A.238
284 


Insert offset folio 357 here 21970A.239
285 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Kevin, I appreciate it. 

Well thank you all. 

The common thread here is really to figure out a way to stay in 

business and to keep people working and working in well-paying 

jobs. The training programs that are offered, whether it is here at 

the Pipeline Training Facility or through our union programs and 

the training facilities and then what we have on the private side, 

this is about putting Alaskans to work in jobs that are good and 

that can sustain their family. 

I do not recall whether it was you, Chad, that used the phrase 

that training needs to be continuous. We all know we live, work 

and operate in a state where we tend to go from boom to bust, and 

we have historically. That has been difficult, but it has been our 

reality. 

As I think about the challenges that we have as a state with recruitment and retention, listening to the comments about the aging 

workforce that is part of our oil and gas sector. Admiral Barrett 

faces it with TAPS. You have got great expertise but that expertise 

began—I graduated from high school at a time that every able-bodied young man, at the time it was mostly men, were going off and 

working on the pipeline. Now they are all getting ready to retire. 

It is good for them. It has been good for their families. But the real 

question is will their kids, the young men and women that are my 

son’s age at 23 and 24, do they view this as an area that they want 

to go into? Do they see the promise as my classmates did when we 

were getting out of high school? This is the concern that I have. 

It is not being viewed as an area for opportunity because of the uncertainty that we have heard through now three panels. 

The question to you all is from your perspective, how can we 

work to reduce some of that uncertainty? Again, those things that 

are holding back our potential. We know that our men and women 

here in Alaska are young people. They have extraordinary potential. We give them the training so they can pretty much do anything. But how do we reduce some of the uncertainty? 

I am going to start the question with a recognition that you have 

raised, Vince, about the very slim capital budget at the state level 

this year. So you do not have a good horizon on the state level for 

projects. We have a pipeline that is at 556,000 barrels a day, down 

well below half. We have layoffs that have been announced within 

the industry because of low prices. We have Shell that moved out 

last year because of regulatory uncertainty and disappointing results after one well at $7 billion in seven years, but one well. What 

can we do, recognizing the uncertainty that we face, to provide a 

little bit more optimism for young people so that they view Alaska’s 

resource industry as a place for them to go? I will let anyone of you 

begin with that long question. Go ahead, Vince. 

Ms. HERBERT. You want to go first? 

Mr. BELTRAMI. I guess. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will start alphabetically, V. 

Mr. BELTRAMI. There you go. [Laughter.] 

Well that is a pretty tough question, obviously. 

In looking at what has happened in Juneau, I guess, one of the 

things they did do, we are only two weeks, two and a half weeks, 

from the end of the regular legislative session, and they are talking 

286 

about what the fiscal plan is going to be for the future. They have 

got to come up with something that substantially knocks off this 

$4 billion deficit or people are going to be walking away from their 

homes like they did in the 80s. Already the credit rating agencies 

have, you know, downgraded the state’s credit rating based on not 

having a fiscal plan. 

But the good news is we are one of the most rich states, not only in resources in the ground but with our $53 billion in the Permanent Fund. There are opportunities to solve some of these problems 

and get the budget in line. Once that is in line, I think, then we 

can look at investing and like I said, one of the things that the legislature, right now, appears to be fearful of doing is making an infrastructure investment by using G.O. bonds or whatever other 

measures that we have available to seed some of that infrastructure that is going to be necessary for a long range fiscal plan. 

We have to have a longer range fiscal plan that includes figuring 

out how to streamline a lot of the regulatory obstacles and permitting that we find in trying to develop resources in the state. In general, we have got to get the state’s fiscal house in order and then 

we have to look to the Federal Government as well and then 

streamlining a lot of these projects, I think, will open up opportunities going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Lisa, what else for certainty? 

Ms. HERBERT. I think that there is very little certainty. I jotted 

down some notes just listening to the different testimony and uncertainty, transparency, unpredictability, state sovereignty, were 

all words that almost every single panelist have used up there. So 

many of those are within our control. 

There is no reason why we cannot provide certainty to industry, 

why we cannot have a predictable investment climate. And for our 

Chamber, you know, we used to focus on the local and state issues 

and now at the forefront of almost every single one of our committee meetings of which industry is well represented, they have 

got experts serving on each of our committees. 

We are talking about how can we streamline and reform the federal regulations that have burdened the private sector and have 

put a lot of thought into the work. You mentioned the thousands 

of employees that get laid off. Industry is operating in an unpredictable environment. I probably do not have the solution here for 

how to move forward, but it is evident when you have 12 people 

up here speaking that the uncertainty is really killing private sector investment, jobs and the economic opportunities here in Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. Chad. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. We talked about the young generation and 

new generation coming into the workforce. I often wonder what do 

they know about it? Do they have an opportunity to go explore 

these careers? 

We look a lot at the Fairbanks, Anchorage, Juneau areas, but 

there are a lot of rural communities out there with a lot of people 

that are very talented. I think bringing them in and allowing them, 

these people, to come in and explore different career options will 

help us build a better workforce. People are going to be able to go 

to work at something they enjoy not just something that they are 

put into because that is what is available at the time. 

287 

Requiring training hours on various projects, the State of Alaska 

requires hours on certain highway projects. Why can’t we do that 

on the military bases? Why can’t we do that on the North Slope? 

I know it is private up there but we have to utilize the resources 

that are walking out the door right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is a great point on the education. 

I was at an Alaska Youth Corps Challenge program. They are 

graduates given an option for an additional month of apprenticeship with different unions. I happened to go out to the iron workers 

training facility, and you had all these 16, 17, 18-year olds that 

were being exposed for the first time. Most of these young people 

were young people who were from villages around the state. Young 

women saying, ‘‘Man, I want to be an iron worker.’’ It was good, 

but education is a key piece. 

Kevin. 

Mr. POMEROY. I am wondering, you know, it was not that long 

ago that folks, young folks, that did not want to go into construction, you know, they got a college career. We have had more that 

are looking at why they are in construction. They, kind of, see the 

writing on the wall. There are not as many opportunities as they 

had originally thought. 

They are actually in construction but I have got some that are 

talking about going back and continuing in their education. So, you 

know, having another fallback. It used to be that construction was 

the fallback. If you could work with your hands you could pretty 

much make a living, but that is not always the case anymore. 

I think it was Bronk that had said up here on one of the earlier 

panels that he had the bigger list of the new standards or the new 

‘‘thou shalts,’’ there seemed like there would be a way to make 

those folks, to compel them to come to Alaska or wherever the region is, that they are getting ready to reinterpret. They are going 

to rewrite the plans book on how these folks play the game or get 

a way to make them come to Alaska and see some of the obstacles 

that they may not be seeing from sitting in their ivory tower rewriting these rule books, if you will, because it is scary. 

I mean, construction we have got to replace where you do not 

have the workforce in the queue, like Chad had mentioned. You do 

not create a well drill tonight. You do not create a welder in a year, 

two years. You do not create an operating engineer in a couple of 

years. 

You have got to have enough sustainable work out in front of the 

workforce, keep them engaged and keep them wanting to be in 

Alaska otherwise we are going to wake up one day with a big 

project and we are going to have to import all our labor because 

they will no longer be there. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask a question and you can figure 

out which section of it you want to answer. 

Admiral Barrett, as the President of Alyeska Pipeline, I think, 

has been a very strong proponent for continuing the life of the 

Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The best way to do it is not engineering 

technologies to reheat the oil at certain points. It’s to fill up the 

pipe. 

When we think about ways to fill up the pipe, in my view, the 

answer that is most direct and clear is through ANWR, accessing 

288 

a small portion of ANWR. ANWR is relatively close to the main 

pipeline on land. It is, in my view, one of those opportunities that 

we have been foreclosed on by the Federal Government. Yet it is 

something that can stand as the solution and when we are talking 

about creating jobs and the incumbent benefits that are associated 

that ANWR is clearly a part of that answer. 

We also recognize that there are many of your folks that are engaged not only in oil and gas opportunities, but they are participating in alternative and renewable energy projects around the 

state whether it is wind, we look at Fire Island as you came flying 

in, whether it is hydro power, extraordinary hydropower resources, 

or some of our other abundant renewable resources. 

This will be last question to each of you. In terms of our energy 

opportunities as a state and how you see the workforce and the job 

opportunities for them, talk to me a little bit about greater access 

to our oil resources, ANWR, offshore, NPRA, renewables. Where do 

you see that future? 

Mr. BELTRAMI. I am trying to remember the year but I think it 

was in the 90’s. I was in DC, your Dad was the Senator with Senator Stevens and Congressman Young, and we had a gigantic 

building trades convention in DC. We did a march, basically 

walked up to the Capitol steps. We had 1,000 people there. The 

stars were aligned allegedly, and we are still hoping for that opportunity. 

I think the building trades unions in general have always been 

extremely supportive. I have had conversations with folks that had 

no idea really what the true situation is up there. It could be done, 

as I think, very safely, that it is the best opportunity to access, like 

you said, convenient to the pipeline’s location, etcetera. 

And there is a lot of mis-information, education out there. I think 

we still have to never leave that opportunity to weigh in against 

anyone or, with all due respect to anyone that objects to it, of drilling in ANWR or not. I do think it is probably one of the most safe 

places that we could access safely and do this right that does not 

have to worry about a lot of the worst conditions in the offshore 

which I still think we can do most of these things safely. We cannot 

give up on pushing that. 

You mentioned renewables. I was Chair of the State’s Renewable 

Energy Fund Advisory Committee that was doing about $50 million 

a year in renewable projects all around the state. Of course right 

now we cannot add to that because of the state’s situation. It would 

be great if there were any federal dollars to push on expanding renewable opportunities. 

One of the concrete things I would like to see, Chad alluded to 

it a little bit, is recently Governor Walker put in an Executive 

Order that beefed up apprenticeship utilization on anything that 

the state contracts. I would suggest that the Federal Government 

could do something similar if you want to always have a pipeline, 

if you will, of workers available and in projects if there could be 

some kind of a specific apprenticeship utilization language associated with any bids that are put out for work on federal jobs whether it is on military bases or anything else. 

That is one way to keep folks in the training pipeline. Short of 

that we just, like I said, we stand ready to plug people in. We have 

289 

outreach efforts everywhere, local hire that we can implement in 

villages and everywhere else that any communities that would be, 

you know, have a project being done nearby. 

So, like I said, we stand ready, and we will do all that we can 

to help in forming a long range plan to put Alaskans to work for 

the future. 

The CHAIRMAN. Other comments on energy job opportunities? 

Ms. HERBERT. I think we have a tremendous asset just up on the 

hill here, our university research and development. You know, we 

need to be able to leverage what they do up there. For every dollar 

they bring in they are able to leverage that in dollars back into the 

economy. 

I know that we are facing unprecedented budget issues right 

now, but we really need to get that fiscal house in order. The military is fortunate to have serious dollars coming to us by the way 

of military construction. They, kind of, ride that bubble a little bit. 

But we have tremendous assets up on the hill and here in this 

building. 

I have always loved saying, we are all in the oil industry because 

we truly are. I think when people say close ANWR and NPRA and 

you look at the turmoil that is happening in the Middle East, we 

have our resources right here on American soil, and the fact that 

we are not able to produce them is shameful. 

I think there is so much more that we could do for that. I am 

not an expert in that industry at all, but what I do know is when 

people are working, the economy is thriving and these guys have 

Alaskans working and the private sector is thriving as well. 

Alaskans have done it best. We have a track record of producing 

resources responsibly, oil and gas and into mining. I know that just 

for every oil and gas direct job, 20 jobs are created indirectly. And 

those are in the nonprofit world, in the private sector. Those are 

the restaurants. Those are the schools. Those are everything. Everything is touched by the oil and gas industry, and to not recognize that hurts us. I think there is lots more that we can do. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. 

Chad. 

Mr. HUTCHINSON. You mentioned ANWR. I can honestly say I 

have been there and spent a lot of time right in that vicinity. 

I spent five years at Point Thompson which borders ANWR and 

have also been to Camden Bay which is the beach right at ANWR. 

From 1991 from the time I started working there until 2005 

when I left, the difference in environmental policies and the safety 

policies is tremendous. I do not think a lot of people understand 

that from what it was when the Navy was up in the North Slope 

in the 1940’s and 1950’s and what they left behind to where it is 

today with virtually zero footprint left behind. I mean, that the 

companies are going out, the contractor has to go out, and he’s accountable for every little thing, not only is the project done in the 

wintertime, but they go back out in the summertime to clean up 

after those projects. It is a huge thing. It is a huge difference. 

Developing our resources, renewable energy, oils, mining, we 

need to do something. We need to move forward. Somewhere we 

have got to have the people to do it. 

290 

Like Ms. Herbert said, it is not just the construction, oil and gas 

industry. It is everybody this is going to affect. If the gas line 

comes into play, you are going to need people in restaurants. You 

are going to need people selling ATVs and boats and repairing cars. 

Across the street there is a help-wanted sign that has been up 

over there for three to four years that has not been taken down. 

They are going to have to put up a bigger sign is what it boils down 

to. We need to start developing these people. We do not want to 

train just to train. We have got to have places for them to go. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Kevin, do you have a final word here? 

Mr. POMEROY. Senator, I would agree with you that ANWR 

should be something to take a look at. I mean, you are looking at 

a development that has been compared to a postage stamp sitting 

on a football field. That would be the type of acreage and impact 

it would do. 

You know, I have noticed as I have come through construction, 

my construction career, you know, I used to be the young guy on 

the field or on the spread. It has been a lot of years since I have 

been the young guy in this field. [Laughter.] 

But one thing I have noticed as I visited some of the job sites 

up there as an agent is there is a younger workforce that by it 

being indoctrinated into their training, they just have a higher 

level of awareness for the environment. Not to say that, you know, 

Chad and myself when we were up there working on the oil field 

that it was not there, it is just that environmental component is 

something that is put into training as we go through the apprenticeship programs. 

You cannot go from one contractor to the next without seeing 

some impact of that, like the safety record. Alyeska is, and 

ConocoPhillips and BP, I mean, in Alaska, they kind of pioneered 

and led the charge, if you will, on safety records. 

It is when it becomes part of the culture that you know you are 

there. I truly believe that we have got young men and women in 

the apprenticeship programs and within just the skilled trades that 

have that same sense of environmental stewardship that has become who they are, that they are going to be the workforce that 

is up there working on those projects. Do they want to see a catastrophe? No. I truly believe that they will do everything they can 

to minimize it. 

I would love to think that Alaska could rely on renewables, but 

I was just down in Juneau here a couple of weeks ago and with 

the low snow pack there were a couple of folks wondering if they 

were going to have enough snow melt in their reservoir to run their 

hydro. It does not take an Einstein to know that after one o’clock 

in the afternoon in Fairbanks, Alaska, solar is not going to do you 

any good. 

So you have got to try to develop those renewable and more environmentally-friendly energies. Here in Alaska, particularly in the 

Interior and in some of the rural communities, you still are reliant 

on natural gas and hydrocarbons. And so, I think the best, the future is to continue to develop the safest way to access it, and that 

is through your workforce. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. 

291 

We have heard great comments all around. I think it really 

helped to round out the conversation today, so thank you for the 

time that you have given us and really the thought and for men 

and women and the families that you represent because at the end 

of the day this is about Alaska. This is about our homes. So thank 

you very much. 

Thank you for that. [Applause.] 

For the benefit of those here we are just about to the four o’clock 

hour, but we made arrangements with the Committee to allow for 

some limited public comments to come before the Committee for 

the record. 

As I mentioned at the outset we would ask that those who wish 

to provide an oral comment, please try to keep your comments to 

just two minutes, and anything that you might provide in writing 

will be incorporated as part of the full Committee record. That will 

not be limited to a two-minute statement. You certainly have greater flexibility with your written statement. 

I am told there is a list. What I will do is call the first three people to be on deck. We will be led off by Bernie Karl. He will be followed by Susan Todd, and then Princess Lucaj, and I don’t know 

if I am pronouncing the last name correctly. If you would just come 

to the microphone. I would ask that you state your name. What 

else do they need for the record? Okay, if you can provide your 

name, spell your last name so that it is included correctly as part 

of the record, and a business affiliation, if you have one. 

Mr. KARL. Bernie Karl, K, A, R, L. Chena Hot Springs Resort. 

And what else did you want? K, A, R, L. I did spell that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Good. 

Mr. KARL. Alright. 

Senator, thank you for this opportunity. It seems to me there is 

more opportunity now than there has ever been in the history of 

man, but it is not business as usual. I did not hear one speaker 

talk about the opportunities in a smoke stack or the opportunities 

in a landfill. 

It is insane that we have smoke stacks. You know why we have 

them? Because the solution to pollution is dilution. Why do we 

have a landfill? Nature has no waste. It is insane that we do not 

take charge of what we have. I am telling you that there should 

never be a landfill, there should never be a smoke stack, and we 

are smart enough to do something about it. The reason we do not 

do anything about it is because we are addicted to oil in one arm, 

and are addicted to greed in the other. 

Do we need oil? Absolutely. There is more opportunity on the 

North Slope than there has ever been. C-One through C-Six are the 

building blocks for most all chemicals in the world. Our government wants to build a pipeline and ship it out of here and take 30 

pieces of silver. Shame on us. Those are the building blocks for the 

world. 

We sit on the world’s largest gas field, world’s second largest gas 

field. We should develop that. All the highest and best paid jobs 

should be in Alaska. For $4 billion in four years with Alaskan help, 

which happens to be some of the best help in the world, we could 

put one million barrels a day of methanol into that pipeline. 

292 

You take CH4. You take out the four molecules of hydrogen and 

you bond that with nitrogen and you bond that with CO2. Yeah, 

CO2. Twelve and a half percent of that field is CO2. Now you make 

a liquid fuel. And that fuel is 100,000 BTUs per gallon. You burn 

it in any engine and store it in any tank that is already here. 

Alaska should lead this energy parade. We are following. Shame 

on us. We need to lead. We have the brightest people here. Our indigenous people have the highest IQ of any indigenous people on 

the Earth. They own a lot of this land and resources, as you heard. 

So if you want to look at the high, the top 14 corporations in 

Alaska, number four is Lynden. The other 13 are all Native Corporations, and so that proves my point. 

I only have just a second left but thank you for the opportunity. 

It is shameful what we are doing. The only thing we need is zero 

federal oversight and zero federal help. 

We want to make your job easy. We have got to stop taking your 

help, and we damn sure do not need any more federal oversight 

and this state could grow. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Karl. 

Susan Todd. 

Ms. TODD. Now that’s a hard act to follow. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, it is. [Laughter.] 

Ms. TODD. Okay, thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to testify. I am Susan Todd. T, O, D, D. 

I am a mother of two, and I have been a professor of Natural Resource Management at the University for 26 years. I have been in 

Alaska 41 years. I came up for the pipeline boom which was a hell 

of a lot of fun. 

I have always felt development can be done responsibly, and I 

used to get a kick out of bumper stickers that said, ‘‘Alaskans for 

Global Warming.’’ But with the increasing evidence of climate 

change in 1999, I started including a unit on global warming in my 

courses. 

Every year I updated my lectures with the latest statistics. Every 

year they were scarier. I went from being unconcerned to being 

deeply worried. 

All ten of the hottest years on record have been since 1998. The 

top four records have been since 2010 with 2015 breaking them by 

a shocking margin. 2015 is now the warmest year on record by far. 

The scariest thing about climate change is that warming creates 

more warming. After a tipping point, global warming will fuel itself 

and it will be unstoppable. 

The sea level is rising exponentially. Instead of moving ten villages we could be moving 50. The economic and social cost of losing 

coastal cities is incalculable. China alone anticipates 350 million 

refugees from their coastline. 

The world is having trouble absorbing just two million refugees 

from Syria. What will happen when we have one billion coastal refugees on the move? 

These are just a few of the impacts we face. The primary cause 

is CO2 emissions. There is an overwhelming scientific consensus on 

climate change and a recent article, scientific article, by James 

Hansen and 18 other globally recognized scientists had this to say, 

‘‘There is a real danger that we will hand young people a climate 

293 

system that is out of control. . .’’ It is hard. ‘‘We conclude that the 

message our climate science delivers to society and policy makers 

is this—we have a global emergency.’’ Scientific journals do not 

usually say things like that. 

Innovative technologies and renewable energy sources are the 

answer, and time is of the essence. Americans, as Bernie said, are 

the most innovative people on the planet. We entered World War 

II flying wooden biplanes, and within just five years we had jet 

fighters. When we decide to solve tough problems, we do it. 

To stop climate change we must transition off fossil fuels as soon 

as possible with new sources of energy and new technology. I urge 

you to do all you can to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and 

to develop renewable energy sources. The question is not can we 

afford to do this; the question is can we afford not to. 

Thank you. [Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Princess, welcome. 

Ms. LUCAJ. Hi. Quickly my last name, L, U, C, A, J. You’ll have 

to excuse me, because I’m a little nervous right now. 

But I am standing before you as an Alaskan Native woman, 

mother, and what I’m most concerned about is maintaining the ecological wellness, integrity of our natural resources. I am also wary 

of the erosion of the public voice in decisions that have to do with 

the destruction and privatization and commodification of our precious life-giving resources such as our crystal waters and 

riverways. 

When you talk about streamlining processes for mining and oil 

and gas development it frightens me, quite frankly, because EPA 

regulations are there for a reason, to protect you and me, to protect 

the public. 

I am sure that if we had not had public protests long ago we 

would have seen development on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or at Pebble Mine or seen HB77 go through 

last year. 

So the real threat to our national security is the devastating effects of climate change. The real threat to our overall well-being is 

to our wildlife. It is what is happening to the chinook, to our marine life and to our caribou, moose and migratory birds. We are not 

the only species that lives and dreams on this planet. 

What right does the Porcupine caribou herd have to return to its 

early nesting ground on the coastal plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? 

We cannot drill our way out of this predicament we find ourselves in as human species. We must begin looking elsewhere to 

create jobs. We are suffering today because we did not do a good 

job of diversifying our economy. 

When I was 17 years old at Lathrop High School a New York 

Times article dated May 29, 1990 read, ‘‘As oil bounty drains Alaska becomes uneasy.’’ In the article then-Governor, Steve Cowper, 

speaks of his optimism about our ability to diversify our economy 

and that taxes could make up from where we are not able to expand. That was 15 years ago. Fifteen years ago and I feel very, 

very strongly that the problem of Alaska’s socioeconomic and ecological environmental sustainability has been put off on my generaVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00299 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
294 

tion. Why did we not do anything 20 years ago when we knew that 

this was coming down the pipeline, literally. It was going to drain 

out eventually because it has been a one-pony show, a one-stopshop. 

Why are we still having this conversation? It is just business as 

usual. To me it feels like business as usual. 

It is time for us to stretch our minds and hearts in innovation 

and work together to transition our economy to one that is truly 

sustainable and logically sound. We need to fund renewables and 

to transition our workforce up to then to work in that field. We 

need to encourage and incentivize our local economies and we need 

every Alaskan to engage in this process of transitioning our economy off of fossil fuels. 

We should really think about what these words mean. Progress. 

Prosperity. Development. [Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. The next three names we have are Erik 

Schaetzle, Tristan Glowa and Odin Miller. 

So if Erik is here, welcome. 

Mr. SCHAETZLE. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, members of the 

Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are going to have to get just a little closer 

so that they can pick you up on the mic for the record. 

Mr. SCHAETZLE. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, members of the 

Committee. 

Our state has a goal of 50 percent electric—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Erik, I need you to spell your last name because 

it is a little challenging. 

Mr. SCHAETZLE. My last name is Schaetzle. S, C, H, A, E, T, Z, 

L, E. 

Our state has a goal of 50 percent electric generation from renewable sources by 2025. As a whole, Alaska already produces over 

20 percent of electricity with water, wind and other renewable energy sources and has seen a 20-fold increase in wind power generation since 2007. 

Kodiak generates over 99 percent of its power from renewable 

energy resources. They are now switching from oil to electric heat 

pumps to heat their homes as they are in Seward and in Juneau 

as well. 

Solar energy has grown considerably across the state in the 

Northwest part of Coral to Copper Valley. In Fairbanks the Golden 

Valley Electric Association is exploring community solar projects. 

This is where the world is headed, and Alaska is extremely wellpositioned to lead it with abundant renewable resources. 

The CHAIRMAN. Hang on just one second. Can he keep talking or 

no? It is all about storage. [Laughter.] 

There we go. 

Mr. SCHAETZLE. Alaska is extremely well-positioned to lead it 

with abundant renewable resources, a skilled workforce and splendid northern engineering know-how to develop the technologies 

that can lead America toward a low pollution future and energy 

independence. 

Last year Mark Jacobson of Stanford created a 100 percent renewable road map for Alaska. We have the solar resource comparable to Germany, geothermal resources suitable for geothermal 

295 

power projects, over 90 percent of the nation’s river current and 

tidal energy resources and outstanding wind resources. 

Our Arctic neighbors are already doing this. Finland has a 100 

percent renewable energy plan. Russia recently completed renewable energy system modeling. It is one of the most energy competitive regions. Canada created a transition pathway for its low carbon future. One hundred forty four countries currently have renewable energy policy targets. 

Refocusing investment on renewable energy providers would shift 

oil and pipeline workers to building energy production systems that 

take advantage of Alaska’s renewable energy potential. 

The transition to a low-carbon society and economy will enhance 

prosperity and well-being, modernize infrastructure, develop regional, renewable energy sources and create new business and new 

jobs in a diversified, innovative, knowledge based economy. 

But according to research published just this last Thursday, the 

24th of March, in Global Trends and Renewable Energy Investment 2016, 2015 produced a new record for global investment in 

renewable energy. 

[The information refered to follows:] 

296 


Insert graphic folio 386 here 21970A.240
297 


Insert graphic folio 387 here 21970A.241
298 

The amount of the money committed to renewables excluding 

large hydroelectric projects rose to $285.9 billion. That was more 

than double that of new coal and gas generation. 

Thank you for your attention. 

The CHAIRMAN. Erik, thank you very much. [Applause.] 

Tristan Glowa, welcome. 

Mr. GLOWA. Thank you, Senator. My name is Tristan Glowa. G, 

L, O, W, A. 

So I grew up and continue to love living in Fairbanks, and I am 

currently a student at Yale University taking a semester or two to 

be here at UAF taking classes on Arctic issues. 

I have been an active community organizer for several years here 

and currently organized with the Fairbanks Climate Action Coalition. So we represent a large number of and growing number of individuals in the community here, faith groups, students, Alaska 

Native leaders, scientists across the board. 

And as someone who plans to continue living in Fairbanks and 

working for this community for the rest of my life, I have to say 

that I am concerned about the future that you are envisioning here 

of expanded fossil fuel production as our community here is seriously at risk for our global and domestic fossil fuel dependence. 

In Alaska we are on the front lines of fossil fuel-induced climate 

change. This is indisputable. The worst things, wildfires, permafrost melt, unpredictable winters, are already affecting this community. Climate change is an existential threat to my generation and 

all future generations. 

In an immediate sense oil dependency is also hurting this community as our lack of revenue diversification has resulted in a 

harsh program of austerity being proposed for our schools and universities. This seriously concerns me as we cannot afford to cut 

back our investment in the human capital. We need to look past 

these tough times. 

The solution that we need for the well-being of my generation 

and future generations is not to double down on fossil fuel extraction. It is not to drill from the Arctic refuge against the wills of the 

Gwich’in Steering Committee. We need to immediately work to diversify our economy and transition away from the fossil fuel economy. 

We should be focusing on green jobs building clean energy systems, energy efficiency, sustainable infrastructure and a resilient 

local food system. We need you to lead on this. This is leadership 

that we need. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Tristan. [Applause.] 

Odin Miller, go ahead. 

Mr. MILLER. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to comment. 

As a lifelong Alaskan I would like to invite Senator Murkowski 

and the members of these panels to fully embrace climate science. 

Its implications for Alaska are abundantly clear. Climate change is 

a grave threat to our state’s future. The economic consequences of 

climate change are also very clear. It is going to cost Alaska billions and billions of dollars to adapt. 

299 

There are currently four villages needing relocation, and our 

state has yet to find funding for even one of those relocations. Dozens more communities are threatened by climate change and will 

likely eventually need to be moved. 

Referring to Alaska’s economy Ms. Herbert recently said, ‘‘Everything is touched by the oil and gas industry.’’ I would point out 

that everything is touched by the climate crisis we are in. 

If we keep putting all our economic drivers in oil and gas and 

mining, these climate adaptation costs are going to get much, much 

worse and overwhelm our state’s capacity. Large new oil projects 

may bring temporary wealth and high paying jobs, but they are 

robbing younger Alaskans like me of our future. 

As long as Alaska makes no effort to look beyond oil and gas it 

will keep advocating at a federal level against any measures that 

would meaningfully mitigate climate change. Keeping federal fossil 

fuel subsidies in place, for example, makes it difficult for sustainable sources of economic development to become competitive in our 

state. 

I acknowledge that it will not be easy to shift away from our 

state’s dependence on oil development, but I think we need to start 

having serious conversations at all institutional levels about how to 

diversify our economy in ways that would still create high paying 

jobs. 

As a start I would like to urge you, Senator Murkowski, to vote 

against the Trans Pacific Partnership which would shift many of 

our jobs overseas, drive down wages and impede our government’s 

ability to enact policies needed to sustainably develop our economy. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Odin. [Applause.] 

The next three on the list are Darlene Herbert, Enei Peter and 

Anna Godin. 

Welcome, Darlene. 

Ms. HERBERT. Thank you. 

My name is Darlene Herbert, and I am from Fort Yukon. I was 

born in Fort Yukon, about 50 miles south of Fort Yukon, and my 

first language was Gwich’in. I had to learn to speak English when 

I was in seventh grade. I mean I made this goal in first grade and 

we were not allowed to speak our language and anytime we spoke 

our language in the school we had our hands beaten by a ruler. To 

this day I speak my language—because of my grandmother. My 

grandmother did not know how to speak the English. 

I retired from Local 942. I had been up on the Slope for about 

28 years and after that I did about eight years at Clear Air Force 

Base. 

I would like to tell you a little story my grandmother told me. 

The story came down from generation after generations for thousands of years and the story is all over Alaska, even the Eskimos 

and Tlingit and everybody knows this. 

There is starvation coming. We know there is starvation coming, 

and if people heed this story in the land there will be nothing. 

There will be no animals to eat, no fish to eat. We have to be very 

careful and protect our land for the generations to come to survive. 

300 

We, as Alaskan Natives, have survived on this land for thousands and thousands of years. The reason we survive on this land 

is because we live off the land. We did not destroy the land. 

I know you people have a different way of seeing things. You 

guys think about money. We do not think about money. We do not 

think about oil. We do not think about gold. 

How we survive is because of the land. We have to keep our 

water clean and our air clean and also keep our animals safe. We 

only take what we need to survive. And if we do not do this your 

kids and our kids will not survive. It will be survival of the fittest 

because when starvation comes you cannot eat money or eat or 

drink oil. 

I have two granddaughters. I have one going to college to be a 

pharmacist. I have another one that is going to be a lawyer. I have 

two younger great grandkids that are going to be lawyers also. 

I understand that we have to learn your language. I understand 

we have to learn your laws which are a lot different from ours. 

When my mother and their parents lived, we all did not have a 

piece of paper to tell us where we belong or where our land was. 

We knew where our land was. We did not need a piece of paper. 

Everybody knew where their land was, and we did not need a piece 

of paper to tell us. 

I think what you guys do is you guys make too much laws for 

each other. You should keep it quite simple and look at how many 

books that guy had. I mean, do you really honestly sit there and 

read every word out of these? Keep your laws simple. You know, 

you do not need too many words. I do not understand. 

But anyways, I work for Local 942, and I get a very good retirement check. And I am very thankful for that. But with the starvation which is going to come, I think that you should tread very 

quietly and not try to destroy everything. 

I understand your need for money, but I have to do this to save 

my children behind me. I hope you take this into consideration 

when you make your laws to not destroy our animals, our fish, our 

water, our land, our air. If we do not change that then we will all 

die, and so will you. Your money cannot save you then. Your oil 

cannot save you. Your minerals cannot save you. 

It is going to be very hard times. My grandmother said it is going 

to be so hard there will not be any water. There will not be any 

animals. 

But we have to know how to live off the Earth because everything on Earth has a name and a language, everything. I think 

that you make too many laws and try to take everything out of the 

Earth. 

Your kids will have a very hard time which will make my kids 

have a very hard time. But if you are going to do all of this make 

sure that you make laws to protect the land and the water and the 

air for the generation behind us. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Darlene. [Applause.] 

Enei, I am going to have you spell your full name. 

Ms. PETER. Sure. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

301 

Ms. PETER. My name is Enei. E, N, E, I. And then Peter is the 

last name. P, E, T, E, R. 

I just have a few quick comments to say and I would really like 

to give most of my time to an expert here in the room, who did not 

get a chance to sign up yet. 

But very quickly I just want to echo for the record officially that 

not all of your constituents want to continue Alaska down the path 

of fossil fuel economic development and mining. 

I am a resident here in Fairbanks. I also have lived in Arctic Village, Alaska. A mother, a Native woman, mother of three Alaska 

Native children who I really feel we, you, we are all doing a disservice to, if we do not begin transitioning our economy now, begin 

finding other jobs, sources, training our workforce towards a different economy. This, I heard on this panel over and over, the uncertainty that exists right now on that path of economic development. 

And so my question is, why are we continuing to put billions of 

dollars into supporting that path when that path has brought us 

to this economic decline? When, like so many before me have said, 

Princess said, this has been a forecast for so long. Now we really 

need to look to our leaders to take very clear steps away from that 

economy. We need to invest more into renewables. We need to provide whatever those subsidies are to the renewable energy sector 

as well as other green businesses. 

So with that I want to ask if I can, I do not know if I have any 

time left actually. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to get through those who are on the 

list before we add any others, if we could do that? 

Mr. EGAN. May I be added? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. EGAN. Thank you so much. 

Ms. PETER. Sorry. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Enei. 

The next three are Anna Gadoon, Pamela Miller and Lois Epstein. 

So is Anna not here? 

Ms. GADOON. I am going to pass my time tonight. 

The CHAIRMAN. Okay, alright. 

Let’s go to Pamela Miller. 

There are just a couple more. Just out of respect. 

Ms. MILLER. Hello. My name is Pam Miller. Thank you for allowing me to testify here today. 

I am here representing myself and my small business, Arctic 

Connections. I depend on the wildlands, our tourists and the remarkable resources that we have in the State of Alaska. 

Alaska is at an exciting time. It is a work to transform our economy away from oil and gas, and other fossil fuels makes a strapped 

based economy. 

I do not know that I heard the words climate change or global 

warming from a single one of the 12 panelists today. I do not think 

that they represent the views adequately of the people of Fairbanks 

or of the State of Alaska and where we are in our economy. 

I will make a quote from one of our quite well-known oil experts 

in this state, Larry Persily, from a recent press article on the radio. 

302 

‘‘We have to accept we are not the oil and gas state that we once 

thought we were and we are never going to be the oil and gas state 

that we once were.’’ 

Because this is not just prices. This is production. We are down 

three-quarters from the peak, and no one out there thinks we have 

another Prudhoe Bay in our back pocket. 

So it is going to be an adjustment for Alaska. In crisis there is 

opportunity, and I think there is incredible opportunity in Alaska. 

And I believe this hearing and the 12 testifiers very narrowly 

looked at what it is a resource of Alaska and of what is their 

wealth? 

People have been living in the heart of Alaska for over 12,000 

years riding on salmon. It did not come a final solution. They have 

been here. We have been here. 

When I look out right now at the transforming economy I am 

looking out 50 years. Where are we going to be? We can get there. 

We have incredible people. We have resources, clean air, clean 

water, a world class conservation system of life that people culture 

from all over the world because we have something no one else has. 

Folks talked about the small footprint of development in Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge. I remember one of our great Republican 

champions for the Refuge talking about the so-called 2,000 acres. 

Well, there is a small tumor in your lungs. Are you going to be worried about the greater cancer that happens? That is just a metaphor, but there is a very real difference between an intact, functioning land that is set aside for the fish and wildlife wilderness 

from the oil and gas industrialization. 

I think as a state we need to look at our powerful imagination, 

and I think that is what we are lacking a little bit as we were looking back instead of forward with the speakers here today. I have 

a vision that we can get to a very much different Alaska. 

We do not need to sacrifice our great lands like our National 

Wildlife Refuge, some of our parks and other places. We can get 

there with a renewable energy economy. We can adapt, first mitigate and adapt to climate change. 

We do not know how we are going to get through that door. We 

can go through the door without knowing exactly what we are getting, where, how we are going to get there. But we need to have 

conversations that are not one-sided, that are not biased, that fully 

represent the great wealth we have here in Alaska. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Pam. [Applause.] 

Lois Epstein, welcome. 

Ms. EPSTEIN. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for having Alaskans participate in this hearing. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to have you spell your last name too. 

Ms. EPSTEIN. Okay, It’s E, P, S, T, E, I, N. 

And hopefully we all get back to Anchorage at some point. 

[Laughter.] 

So I am an Alaska-licensed engineer. I am also the Arctic Program Director for the Wilderness Society. What many people do not 

know is that the Wilderness Society has been operating in Alaska 

since the 1930s and we have had our scientists working on ArcticVerDate Sep 11 2014 01:56 Aug 23, 2017 Jkt 021970 PO 00000 Frm 00308 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A970.XXX A970
303 

related issues, identifying important places and the ecology there 

since the early days of the organization. 

As an organization and as a member of the public we are greatly 

disappointed by the lack of important perspectives at this hearing. 

Key missing perspectives include federal officials, conservationists, 

tribal members, renewable energy developers, guides and outfitters, economists and others in support of a diversified economy in 

the state. 

Alaskans deserve to have this great state treated as more than 

just a resource development economy. Alaska is a land of intact 

ecosystems with some of the cleanest and most scenic lands and 

waters on Earth. There is a thriving consistent way of life in these 

parts of the state that it is our obligation to maintain for future 

generations. 

Finally, I would like to add that as many others have said that 

we cannot drill or mine our way to a sustainable state budget. Our 

elected officials should be working towards diversifying and reorganizing our economy now to prepare for the post oil future. I recognize there is a federal role involved as well as a state role in that, 

but we are clearly at a very important time for the state to figuring 

out where we are going for the next few decades. 

So thank you, appreciate this opportunity to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Lois. [Applause.] 

The next person that we have on the list is Art Nash, and then 

by popular acclaim, this gentleman will be invited once Mr. Nash 

has spoken. 

Welcome. 

Mr. NASH. Thank you, Senator. 

That’s Art Nash, N, A, S, H, like the old rambler, and I am with 

the School of Natural Resources, an extension at UAF. And I just 

wanted to, I guess, bring attention to our food situation in the state 

and food security. 

The other issues that have been talked about are high flying. I 

look more at, kind of, the direct season-to-season. I see that 95 percent, according to the State Department of Ag, of our food comes 

from the lower 48. That is disconcerting. 

Sometimes, you know, we will have different types of disruptions. 

It might be 9/11. Possibly in the past we have had volcanoes that 

have gone off that have interrupted traffic and then people, kind 

of, feel the pinch or a barge does not make it up. The people start 

to think about food. 

I think one of the key components of having affordable food in 

Alaska is energy. And whether it comes from coal, oil, natural gas 

or wood, I think that a continued work in policy and assistance on 

trying to figure out how to have energy lengthen our season, our 

growing season, is just a good investment for the state. 

Right now a lot of growers will tell you that they are not going 

to plant until it is 46 degrees which is usually, even in a season 

like last year, where we had a lot of water and the snow evacuated 

with a bit of a break up. They start in June, and then they pretty 

much end at first frost in September in the Interior. 

With using the energy wisely, again regardless of the source, it 

would be good to try to figure out ways to lengthen the season to 

go ahead and get another month after frost, a couple of months 

304 

early. I think that energy, obviously, and the cost of energy has a 

lot to do with when we can extend those seasons and how. But I 

also think that with some of the things that have been talked 

about there are also opportunities that people may see as failures 

or disasters that may benefit us. 

The fact that when we do have now a very strong source of water 

that we can draw on for Ag and start to, hopefully, figure out how 

to tap, whether it be from, you know, various natural sources such 

as last year when we had in Delucia that we’ve never had a different type of weather events that are new. Let us take them on 

as opportunities and figure out how to put in new traps. How to, 

maybe, go ahead and ride on the back of some invasive species that 

are going to come anyway, figure out which types of foods grow 

best and learn from other states. 

So I know that food has not been the tenor of most of the discussion, but it is linked with energy. And I think that with the permafrost melting there are going to be some opportunities for maybe 

more crop land and trying to figure things out. And these are 

things that, like I say, may seem to be on the fringe of what most 

of today’s discussion was about. But I think it is worth, as you go 

back to Washington and maybe as you work with other Committees 

and such, it is worth trying to kick around and kick the can down 

the road a little bit and trying to figure out how we can get more 

food grown in the state. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nash. [Applause.] 

Greg Egan, welcome to the Committee. 

Mr. EGAN. Well, thank you so much for the opportunity. I did not 

think that you were going to go past four, so I thought my odds 

were really low for signing up. So I did not. 

The CHAIRMAN. You get to bring up the end here, so thank you. 

Mr. EGAN. My name is Greg Egan. My company is Remote 

Power, Inc. I have a small company here in Fairbanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Could you spell your last name? 

Mr. EGAN. E, G, A, N. 

I have a company here in Fairbanks, and we have designed and 

installed solar and wind power systems for a couple of decades, 

mostly small stuff. 

And so I think a lot of people think that is what I want to talk 

about and that was really it, but I will mention that there is and 

I am sure you are aware of this in the lower Kuskokwim area. I 

want to say Quinhagak, Togiak and two other villages, they have 

systems in place now where they are turning the diesel engines off 

and running off of wind and they are using thermal storage. They 

look like little pellet stoves only they are electric and they fire 

brick in them. 

The CHAIRMAN. I have seen them. 

Mr. EGAN. Yeah, I know you have. 

And there was a nice article on Alaska News Nightly maybe a 

month or so ago that talked about it that I was lucky enough to 

hear. 

So anyway, there is some things that are not pie in the sky. They 

are not far off in the distance. They are actually happening now 

and they are happening—with renewable energy. 

305 

So I think that it is okay that we focus on that. We do not have 

to try to reinvent the wheel. 

What I really wanted to, what I was thinking of speaking about, 

was a little bit about climate change and trying to explain something. I think this is really important, okay. 

I am an old refrigeration mechanic. I am not a scientist. James 

Hansen has a recent paper, and one of the things he says here is 

he is talking about climate change. ‘‘The economic cost of losing 

functionality of all coastal cities is practically uncalculable.’’ 

This is a guy that talked to Congress in 1988. He’s a NASA scientist. He and 18 other co-authors, you know, had this study done 

recently, a couple of weeks ago now. 

We suggest that a strategy reliant on adaptation to such consequences will be unacceptable to most of humanity. So it is important to understand this threat as soon as possible. 

So and to try and help with that, okay? I was a refrigerator mechanic. I learned a long time ago that in order to melt a pound of 

ice, changing from ice to water. So just a phase change, not temperature. This is 16 ounces. This is about a pound of ice. It takes 

144 BTUs. Okay? It takes the same 144 BTUs to warm over 17 gallons of water, one degree. 

So the reason this is important to understand is that there is, 

when you read papers from these geoscientists and such, who talk 

about how many gigatons of ice have been melted and so on and 

so forth. You have got about—there used to be. All that heat combined with that ice is huge. 

And if you think about it as a hunter if you have a serious freezer, 18 cubic foot, 20 cubic foot, you shoot a moose. You drag it home 

and you throw that moose in the freezer and you think it is going 

to freeze? You know, you find out that except for when the engine 

is frozen, the stuff in the middle died because it takes so much 

heat to change the state of liquid to ice or ice to liquid. 

It takes one BTU is what is needed to raise one pound of water, 

one degree Fahrenheit. That is just a definition. Okay? One hundred forty-four BTUs could change a pound of ice to a pound of 

water at 32 degrees, not change the temperature at all. So it just 

takes something into exponential thing and it is hard for us to 

wrap our minds around that. It is hard for us to wrap our minds 

around compound interest. 

But anyway, whether it is hard to wrap around or not, that is 

what is going on. And it is going to cause everyone big problems, 

be they Alaskans, be they one of the billion coastal refugees in the 

future. That, I think, is an important point. And I think it makes 

sense. This is a pound of water compared to 17, over 17 gallons of 

water. To melt this, you could heat 17 gallons of water, you know, 

from 33 degrees to 34. 

Hope that makes sense. Thank you so much for letting me, allowing me to speak. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Egan. [Applause.] 

I would like to thank the 12 people who provided public testimony. We appreciate your comments as well as that of the panel 

of 12 Alaskans that we had heard from. 

As I mentioned at the outset for those who might wish to submit 

written testimony to be incorporated as part of the record, it will 

306 

be held open for two weeks from today. You may submit that testimony by talking to Annie Hoefler right over here. Annie will make 

sure that we have the right way to communicate any additional 

input that you may have. 

I mentioned my thanks to Chad Hutchinson and those here at 

the Training Center for opening their doors, but I also want to give 

a specific shout out to Michelle Foley. I do not know if Michelle is 

still here. There she is over there. Michelle, thank you. You have 

made this happen very effortlessly and easily and working with my 

staff on the Energy Committee. We appreciate that as well. 

Again, the intention for today’s hearing, in addition to hearing 

from those who provided testimony, was really to provide a base for 

examination of those ways and methods that we can help facilitate 

opportunities for Alaskans wherever they may be, whether they are 

down in Ketchikan, Barrow or places in between and recognizing 

our full potential as Alaskans. But also the opportunities and the 

challenges that present themselves in a place that is as unique and 

remarkable and filled with human resources as well as God-given 

resources and our responsibility to one another in that. 

So thank you for the opportunity to be with you. We have overextended thanks to Mount Pavlof today. 

With that, the Energy and Natural Resources Committee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.] 

(307) 

APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED 

308 


Insert offset folio 411 here 21970A.242
309 


Insert offset folio 412 here 21970A.245
310 


Insert offset folio 413 here 21970A.246
311 


Insert offset folio 414 here 21970A.247
312 


Insert offset folio 415 here 21970A.248
313 


Insert offset folio 416 here 21970A.243
314 


Insert offset folio 417 here 21970A.244
315 


Insert offset folio 01 here 21970A.257
316 


Insert offset folio 01 here 21970A.249
317 


Insert offset folio 419 here 21970A.250
318 


Insert offset folio 420 here 21970A.251
319 


Insert offset folio 421 here 21970A.252
320 


Insert offset folio 422 here 21970A.253
321 


Insert offset folio 423 here 21970A.254
322 


Insert offset folio 424 here 21970A.255
323 


Insert offset folio 425 here 21970A.256