U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

81–285 PDF 2014

H.R. 1964, NATIONAL PETROLEUM 

RESERVE ALASKA ACCESS ACT; 

H.R. 1965, FEDERAL LANDS JOBS 

AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT; 

H.R. 1394, PLANNING FOR AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF 2013; AND 

H.R. 555, BLM LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS ACT

LEGISLATIVE HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

Serial No. 113–21

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

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

(

or 

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democratic Member

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Steve Southerland, II, FL 

Bill Flores, TX 

Jon Runyan, NJ 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Markwayne Mullin, OK 

Chris Stewart, UT 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Vacancy 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, AS 

Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Rush Holt, NJ 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Carol Shea-Porter, NH 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Matt Cartwright, PA

Todd Young, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Legislative Counsel 

Jeffrey Duncan, Democratic Staff Director 

David Watkins, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

DOUG LAMBORN, CO, Chairman 

RUSH HOLT, NJ, Ranking Democratic Member

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Rob Bishop, UT 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Paul C. Broun, GA 

John Fleming, LA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Bill Flores, TX 

Mark E. Amodei, NV 

Steve Daines, MT 

Kevin Cramer, ND 

Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio 

Steven A. Horsford, NV 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Peter A. DeFazio, OR 

Tony Ca ́ rdenas, CA 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ 

Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI 

Joe Garcia, FL 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on Wednesday, May 22, 2013 .......................................................... 1

Statement of Members: 

Hastings, Hon. Doc, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Washington .................................................................................................... 34

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 36

Holt, Hon. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Jersey ............................................................................................................. 4

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

Lamborn, Hon. Doug, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 2

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

Tipton, Hon. Scott R., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Colorado ......................................................................................................... 6

Prepared statement on H.R. 1394 ............................................................ 8

Statement of Witnesses: 

Britain, William W., President/CEO, EnergyNet.com, Inc. .......................... 55

Prepared statement on H.R. 555 .............................................................. 56

Brower, Charlotte E., Mayor, North Slope Borough, Alaska ........................ 26

Prepared statement on H.R. 1964 ............................................................ 27

Connell, Jamie, Acting Deputy Director, Bureau of Land Management, 

U.S. Department of the Interior .................................................................. 9

Prepared statement on H.R. 1964, H.R. 1965, H.R. 1394, and 

H.R. 555 ................................................................................................. 11

Ekstrom, Jack R., Vice President, Government and Corporate Relations, 

Whiting Petroleum Corporation ................................................................... 51

Prepared statement on H.R. 1964, H.R. 1965, H.R. 1394, and 

H.R. 555 ................................................................................................. 52

Glenn, Richard K., Executive Vice-President, Lands and Natural 

Resources, Arctic Slope Regional Corporation ............................................ 47

Prepared statement on H.R. 1964 ............................................................ 48

Miller, Deborah S., Teacher, Author, Arctic Explorer, Guide, Mother, 

and Founding Board Member, Alaska Wilderness League ....................... 61

Prepared statement on H.R. 1964 ............................................................ 62

Spehar, James G., Former Mayor and City Council Member, Grand 

Junction, Colorado, Past President, Colorado Municipal League, Former 

Mesa County (Colorado) Commissioner ...................................................... 68

Prepared statement on H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394 .................................. 70

Sullivan, Dan, Commissioner, Department of Natural Resources, State 

of Alaska ........................................................................................................ 16

Prepared statement on H.R. 1964 ............................................................ 17

Additional materials submitted for the record: 

Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

September 13, 2011, Statement for the record, .......................................... 59

Governor Rolls Out ANWR Exploration Proposal for ANWR 1002 Area, 

Office of the Governor, State of Alaska ....................................................... 25

Letter Submitted for the Record by The Honorable Doug Lamborn From 

The Wilderness Society ................................................................................ 78

Letter Submitted for the Record from the Honorable Sean Parnell, 

Governor, State of Alaska ............................................................................ 24

List of documents retained in the Committee’s files ..................................... 82

(1)

LEGISLATIVE HEARING ON H.R. 1964, 

‘‘NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE ALASKA 

ACCESS ACT’’; H.R. 1965, ‘‘FEDERAL LANDS 

JOBS AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT’’; 

H.R. 1394, ‘‘PLANNING FOR AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF 2013’’; AND H.R. 555, ‘‘BLM 

LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS ACT’’

Wednesday, May 22, 2013

House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in 

room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Doug Lamborn 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Lamborn, Wittman, Benishek, Daines, 

Cramer, Hastings, Holt, Costa, Huffman, and Ca ́ rdenas. 

Also Present: Representative Tipton. 

Mr. LAMBORN. The Committee will come to order. The Chairman 

notes the presence of a quorum, which, under Committee Rule 3(e), 

is two Members. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources is meeting today to hear testimony on a legislative hearing 

on four bills: 

H.R. 1964, by Hastings of Washington, the ‘‘National Petroleum 

Reserve Alaska Access Act’’; 

H.R. 1965, introduced by myself, the ‘‘Federal Lands Jobs and 

Energy Security Act’’; 

H.R. 1394, by Representative Tipton of Colorado, ‘‘Planning for 

American Energy Act of 2013’’; 

and H.R. 555, by Johnson of Ohio, ‘‘BLM Live Internet Auctions 

Act.’’

Under Committee Rule 4(f), opening statements are limited to 

the Chairman and Ranking Member. However, I ask unanimous 

consent to include any other Members’ opening statements in the 

hearing record, if submitted to the clerk by close of business today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

I also ask unanimous consent that Representative Tipton of Colorado be allowed to participate in today’s hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Hearing no objection? 

Dr. HOLT. No objection. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So ordered. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

2

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOUG LAMBORN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to thank our witnesses for being here 

today. Some of you have come a long way and we appreciate that. 

Today we are meeting on four bills to expand American energy production, create American jobs, cut through bureaucratic red tape, 

and streamline a regulatory process that is forcing companies to 

avoid Federal land for energy production in search of State and private land more conducive to energy development. 

We will be hearing testimony on these four bills that I introduced 

earlier. H.R. 555, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, would bring 

BLM leasing into the 21st century by amending the Mineral Leasing Act to allow BLM to conduct lease sales through the Internet. 

H.R. 1964, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, 

would open up the NPR–A to oil and natural gas development, ensure that competitive leasing occurs, and nullify the Interior Department’s integrated activity plan and Environmental Impact 

Statement that would close off nearly 50 percent of the reserve, 

and that virtually denies access to a conservative estimate of over 

2.7 billion barrels of oil. 

H.R. 1394, the Planning for American Energy Act of 2013, would 

require the Secretary of the Interior to establish an all-of-the-above 

4-year energy production plan to ensure that the United States 

uses Federal lands to provide for our energy needs in the future. 

Additionally, we will hear testimony on legislation I have introduced, H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act. 

By focusing on energy permitting and leasing, this legislation 

would streamline the onshore permitting process, provide for onshore leasing certainty, and allow oil shale development to move 

forward, unencumbered by changing regulations and a fluctuating 

royalty rate. 

The Obama Administration has repeatedly claimed it is doing all 

they can to facilitate conventional and renewable energy development. However, their actions show otherwise. The Administration 

has repeatedly canceled lease sales, added additional lease terms 

and stipulations after a lease has been issued, and taken months, 

if not years, to issue APDs. We all remember one of the first actions of this Administration was to revoke dozens of leases after 

they had been fairly awarded and issued. Further, the Administration has made lease terms for oil shale development so adverse to 

development that they have received a minimal number of bids on 

the oil shale lease sales they have held. 

While States are issuing APDs within 30 days, or even a week, 

the Federal Government takes 270 days to issue an APD. 

H.R. 1965 would set firm timelines for this process, and require 

lawsuits to be filed in a timely fashion, so energy projects are not 

held up indefinitely. It would also direct resources to field offices 

so they are able to efficiently process renewable and conventional 

energy project permits on Federal lands. Additionally, this legislation would require the government to lease at least 25 percent of 

the acreage nominated for leasing. 

While the Administration claims they are moving forward with 

a robust, competitive leasing program, the facts tell us the opposite. In 2012, in my home State of Colorado, 220,000 acres were 

3

identified and proposed for leasing, yet the Administration chose to 

lease just about 5,000, or 4 percent of these lands. In New Mexico, 

15,500 out of more than 118,000 areas nominated were released, 

and in Arizona there has not been a single lease sale, despite interest in nearly 50,000 acres. 

Finally, my legislation would ensure regulatory certainty to allow 

oil shale development to progress. In the United States we are 

blessed with some of the largest and richest deposits of oil shale 

in the entire world. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the 

Western United States may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of 

oil, 6 times Saudi Arabia’s proven resources. However, this Administration has changed oil shale lease terms, making them so restrictive that there is little industry interest in this rich American resources. 

The Administration has recently released redrafted regulations 

for oil shale development. Yet these restrictive proposed regulations would continue to lock up American resources from development, leaving this tremendous potential resource virtually untouched. Each of the bills we will hear testimony on will take great 

steps forward to promote domestic energy security, economic development, and job creation. Combined, these bills reduce our dependence on foreign imports, generate revenue for the American treasury, and allow us to benefit from our country’s amazing resources. 

I would like to thank the witnesses for taking the time to testify 

for us today, and I look forward to hearing their testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lamborn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOUG LAMBORN, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

I’d like to thank our witnesses for being with us today. Today we are meeting on 

four bills to expand American energy production, create American jobs, cut through 

bureaucratic red tape and streamline a regulatory process that is forcing companies 

to avoid Federal land for energy production in search of State and private land more 

amenable to energy development. 

We will be hearing witness testimony on four bills. H.R. 555, the ‘‘BLM Live Internet Auctions Act,’’ would bring BLM leasing into the 21st century by amending the 

Mineral Leasing Act to allow BLM to conduct lease sales through the Internet. 

H.R. 1964, the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’ would open up the 

NPR–A to oil and natural gas development, ensure competitive leasing occurs, and 

nullify the Interior Department’s Integrated Activity Plan and Environmental Impact Statement that would close off nearly 50 percent of the reserve and virtually 

denies access to a conservative estimate of over 2.7 billion barrels of oil. 

H.R. 1394, the ‘‘Planning for American Energy Act of 2013’’ would require the Secretary of the Interior to establish an all-of-the above 4-year energy production plan 

to ensure that the United States uses Federal lands to provide for our energy needs 

in the future. 

Additionally we will hear testimony on legislation I have introduced, H.R. 1965, 

the ‘‘Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act.’’ By focusing on energy permitting 

and leasing, this legislation would streamline the onshore permitting process, provide for onshore leasing certainty, and allow oil shale development to move forward 

unencumbered by changing regulations and a fluctuating royalty rate. 

The Obama Administration has repeatedly claimed it is doing all they can to facilitate conventional and renewable energy development. However their actions 

show otherwise. 

The Administration has repeatedly canceled lease sales, added additional lease 

terms and stipulations after a lease has been issued, and taken months, if not years 

to issue APDs. We all remember one of the first actions of this Administration was 

to revoke dozens of leases after they had been fairly won and issued. Further, the 

Administration has made lease terms for oil shale development so adverse to development they have received a minimal number of bids on the oil shale lease sales 

they have held. 

4

While States are issuing APDs within 30 days, or even a week, the Federal Government takes 270 days to issue an APD. H.R. 1965 would set firm timelines for 

the Government to issue APDs and require lawsuits to be filed in a timely fashion 

so energy projects are not held up indefinitely. It would also direct resources to field 

offices so they are able to efficiently process renewable and conventional energy 

projects permits on Federal lands. 

Additionally, this legislation would require the Government to lease at least 25 

percent of the acreage nominated for leasing. While the Administration claims they 

are moving forward with a robust competitive leasing program, the facts tell us the 

opposite. In 2012 in my home State of Colorado, 220,000 acres were identified and 

proposed for leasing, yet the Administration chose to lease just over 5,000—or 4 percent of those lands. In New Mexico, 15,500 out of 118,781 acres nominated were 

leased, and in Arizona there has not been a single lease sale, despite interest in 

nearly 50,000 acres. 

Finally, my legislation would ensure regulatory certainty to allow oil shale development to progress. In the United States we are blessed with some of the largest, 

richest deposits of oil shale in the entire world. According to the U.S. Geological 

Survey, the Western United States may hold more than 1.5 trillion barrels of oil—

six times Saudi Arabia’s proven resources. However this Administration has 

changed oil shale lease terms, making them so restrictive there is little industry interest in this rich American resource. The Administration has recently released redrafted regulations for oil shale development, yet these restrictive proposed regulations would continue to lock up American resources from development, leaving this 

tremendous potential resource virtually untouched. 

Each of the bills we will hear testimony on will take great steps forward to promote domestic energy security, economic development and job creation. Combined, 

these bills reduce our dependence on foreign imports, generate revenue for the 

American treasury, and allow us to benefit from our country’s resources. I’d like to 

thank the witnesses for taking the time to testify for us today and I look forward 

to hearing their testimony. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Holt, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RUSH HOLT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bills we are considering today have been put forward by the Majority in the previous 

Congress, and rejected in that Congress. Now, I have nothing 

against persistence. We should continue to try to legislate for what 

we think is right. 

But these legislations, which are intended to make sure that the 

oil and gas companies operate, in the Chairman’s words, 

‘‘unencumbered by regulations,’’ seem really unnecessary to see 

that these companies and interests are unanswerable to the public 

and to the regulators operating on behalf of the public. It is not as 

though the regulations to ensure that drilling on public lands is 

happening safely. It is not as if those regulations are hurting the 

oil and gas industry. 

In fact, it is a pretty good time to be in the oil and gas business. 

The top five oil companies, need I remind the Committee, made 

$119 billion in profits last year. We produced the most oil from 

Federal lands onshore in a decade last year, 16 percent higher than 

in the end of the previous Administration, despite the Majority’s 

claims that this Administration is somehow hurting things. The industry has begun drilling more new wells on public lands onshore 

in the last 4 years than in the corresponding time in the previous 

Administration. 

So, I do have to ask why. What is the justification for doing these 

things, other than to give the energy interests a free ride? The ReVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
5

publican bills would elevate speed over safety, while opening new, 

huge swaths of new public land. And the bills would relegate hunting and fishing and recreation and conservation behind energy production. They do nothing to ensure that American oil and natural 

gas benefits the American consumers, and is not just an export 

commodity. 

Maybe the Majority has been reading too many science fiction 

novels. It is sort of like the Land that Time Forgot. These bills are 

a relic of a bygone era. It is as if we were looking at fossilized 

pieces of legislation that might have been more relevant at an earlier time. They turn over the control of leasing on our public lands 

to the industry, by requiring leasing to occur on at least 25 percent 

of whatever public lands the oil and gas industry nominates each 

year, regardless of whether or not drilling would be appropriate. If 

you do the math, you will see pretty quickly nearly all public land 

could be turned over to the oil industry under such a requirement. 

It would put a barrier to anybody challenging decisions by essentially imposing a poll tax, or a speech tax. You would have to put 

up $5,000 that you wouldn’t get back to challenge an oil or gas 

leasing decision. This is not the Judiciary Committee, but it certainly, I think, is worth considering whether this violates the First 

Amendment to the Constitution. 

Anyway, the provisions are unwise and, I would argue, unwarranted. Why are we doing this? It is not as if we have to streamline 

the process. Sure, we want efficiency. Of course, we want fairness. 

But it is not as if the protections that we need for health and safety 

and the environment are stifling the industry. 

Now, I should point out we are considering a couple of other bills 

today, Mr. Tipton’s bill about planning, which, in concept, is a good 

idea. I have a lot of problems with the details of it, but it is certainly worth undertaking the discussion. And Mr. Johnson’s Internet auctions, to me, at least, makes sense. 

So, I think we will have the opportunity for some good discussion 

today, and I thank the Chair for setting this up. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Holt follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE RUSH HOLT, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES

Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, the bills we are considering today have already been put forward 

by the Majority in the last Congress and rejected by the Senate. These bills have 

already proven to be too controversial to pass the Senate yet have been reintroduced 

virtually unchanged. 

Once again, these Republican drilling bills would elevate speed over safety while 

opening huge new swaths of public land. These bills would relegate hunting, fishing, 

recreation and conservation behind energy production. And these bills would continue to do nothing to ensure that American oil, fuel and natural gas benefits American consumers and is not just exported overseas. 

This hearing is like a legislative time capsule from a time before U.S. oil production had reached its highest level in 20 years; from a time before our dependence 

on foreign oil had dropped to 36 percent; from a time before oil production from Federal lands onshore had reached its highest levels in a decade. 

Maybe the Majority has been reading one too many science fiction novels because 

here in the Natural Resources Committee it is like ‘‘the Land that Time Forgot,’’ 

where we have the story of a party stranded on a desert island lost to the changes 

of the outside world. 

These bills are relics of a bygone area—as relevant as the telegraph or the horse 

and buggy. They are fossilized pieces of legislation that the Majority continues to 

6

dust off and move through this Committee with complete disregard for the increases 

in America’s oil production that have occurred under President Obama. 

These bills would impose a ‘‘shot clock’’ on the Interior Department’s review of 

drilling permits. After 60 days, drilling permits would be automatically ‘‘deemed approved,’’ regardless of whether safety reviews had been completed. We know that 

between 1998 and 2011, one-fifth of the drilling violations on public lands were related to blowout preventers or other well control equipment, yet, these bills would 

make drilling less safe. 

These bills would turn over control of leasing on our public lands to the oil industry by requiring leasing to occur on at least 25 percent of whatever public lands the 

oil and gas industry nominates every year, regardless of whether or not drilling 

would be appropriate. If you do the math, you see that pretty quickly, nearly all 

public land could be turned over to the oil industry under such a requirement. 

These bills would impose a protest fee ‘‘poll tax’’ where anyone wanting to challenge an oil and gas leasing decision has to put up $5,000 that they do not get back, 

regardless of the outcome of the protest. It would take a person earning the minimum wage 4 months working full time and foregoing feeding and sheltering himself 

and his family in order to pay this protest fee. The First Amendment to the Constitution provides that the people have the right to petition the Government for a 

redress of grievances yet this provision is a violation of that first amendment right. 

These provisions are unwise and unwarranted. 

Meanwhile, while we are considering four Republican bills today, the Majority refused to add even a single Democratic bill to this hearing. The Majority refused to 

consider legislation I have introduced with Ranking Member Markey to ensure that 

the oil and natural gas produced from our public lands cannot be exported. The Majority refused to consider Democratic legislation to get oil companies to start drilling 

on the tens of millions of acres of public land they already have under lease on 

which they are doing nothing. The Majority refused to consider legislation to help 

reduce our deficit by ensuring that big oil cannot continue to drill for taxpayerowned resources for free. 

Those Democratic proposals would actually increase our energy security, help consumers and reduce our deficit. That is what we should be doing today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Also, as this is a legislative hearing, 

I ask unanimous consent to allow Representative Tipton to give an 

opening statement on his bill, H.R. 1394. 

[No response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Representative Tipton, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for convening today’s hearing on this critical package of onshore energy 

reform legislation, including my bill, H.R. 1394. 

At a time when our country needs to be able to focus on domestic 

energy production and job creation, it is critical that we have an 

established national energy plan to be able to meet our needs. As 

it stands, the Administration has no comprehensive plan for meeting the inevitable demand for energy in both traditional and alternative sources. And, historically, our Nation has lacked a clear plan 

for energy development on public lands. 

The Planning for American Energy Act puts a common-sense 

plan into place by requiring that our Nation’s energy needs are met 

through development of traditional and alternative energy resources, with a true all-of-the-above approach that will lower the 

cost of energy, jump-start economic recovery, and get Americans 

working. Currently, unpredictable leasing programs, permitting 

backlogs, inconsistent policies and regulations, as well as rampant 

litigation, greatly inhibit private companies from producing energy 

7

on federally controlled lands to meet the needs of American families. 

This convoluted framework stymies the development of all 

energy sources, from oil and gas to wind, solar, and hydropower. 

This Administration’s policies have rendered energy production on 

public lands so costly and burdensome that companies which once 

provided valuable jobs in the Third District of Colorado and across 

the West are being forced to seek out State and private lands for 

development. This can have a massive impact on employment numbers in districts that are largely comprised of Federal lands. 

Since President Obama took office, total fossil fuel production 

has dropped 7 percent. From 2010 to 2011, total Federal onshore 

oil and natural gas production has decreased 13 percent and 10 

percent, respectively. President Obama continually claims that production is increasing. It is critical to note that this is attributed exclusively to production on State and private lands, where the Administration’s policies do not govern energy policy. 

All production on State and private lands has risen by 11 percent, and natural gas production has increased by 40 percent since 

2000. These figures are particularly disconcerting at a time when 

rising gas prices are devastating American families and small businesses. Similar impediments affect wind and solar energy industries, as well. During the past 4 years, the wind industry has added 

over 35 percent of all new generating capacity in the United States, 

and U.S. wind power capacity represents more than 20 percent of 

the world’s installed wind power. 

Nevertheless, due to unreliable Federal policies and over-regulation, the wind industry has lost 10,000 jobs since 2009, according 

to a recent report. Limitations on the zones in which solar development is permitted have concerned many solar energy producers 

and hindered their ability to be able to provide additional electricity to the grid, lower costs for taxpayers, and provide clean 

energy jobs. 

The Planning for American Energy Act would set the United 

States on a path for energy development that follows the most logical criteria: the needs of our people. Under the legislation, the 

non-partisan Energy Information Administration provides the projected energy needs of the United States for the next 30 years to 

the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture, on 

which they can then base their 4-year production plans. 

The bill requires that all domestic sources—oil, gas, coal, wind, 

solar, hydropower, geothermal, oil shale, and minerals—needed for 

energy development be included in the plan. It accomplishes this 

responsibly, without removing a single environmental safeguard. 

Because many local communities in districts like mine place such 

a large role in domestic energy production, H.R. 1394 requires the 

Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to solicit 

input from affected States, federally recognized tribes, local governments, and the public, in developing this 4-year strategy. 

The bottom line is the American people need a reliable supply of 

affordable energy. We need to put into place a sustainable energy 

plan that responsibly advances the development of alternative and 

traditional resources, generates economic growth, lowers energy 

costs, and gets Americans working. My bill puts words into action, 

8

and would force the Administration to be able to meet the American needs for energy, and to be able to put our people back to 

work. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to make a comment 

in this hearing. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tipton follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SCOTT R. TIPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO

H.R. 1394—PLANNING FOR AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF 2013

Thank you Mr. Chairman for convening today’s hearing on this critical package 

of onshore energy reform legislation including my bill, H.R. 1394. 

At a time when our country needs to focus on domestic energy production and job 

creation, it is critical that we have an established national energy plan to meet our 

needs. As it stands, the Administration has no comprehensive plan for meeting the 

inevitable demand for energy in both traditional and alternative sources and historically, our Nation has lacked a clear plan for energy development on public lands. 

The Planning for American Energy Act puts a common sense plan into place by 

requiring that our Nation’s energy needs are met through development of traditional and alternative energy resources with a true all-of-the-above approach that 

will lower the cost of energy, jumpstart economic recovery, and get Americans working. 

Currently, unpredictable leasing programs, permitting backlogs, inconsistent policies and regulations, as well as rampant litigation greatly inhibit private companies 

from producing energy on federally controlled lands to meet the needs of American 

families. This convoluted framework stymies the development of all energy sources, 

from oil and gas to wind, solar, and hydropower. 

This Administration’s policies have rendered energy production on public lands so 

costly and burdensome that companies which once provided valuable jobs in the 

Third District of Colorado and across the West are being forced to seek out State 

and private lands for development. This can have a massive impact on employment 

numbers in districts that are largely comprised of Federal lands. 

Since President Obama took office total fossil fuel production has dropped 7 percent. From 2010 to 2011 total Federal onshore oil and natural gas production is has 

decreased 13 percent and 10 percent respectively. President Obama continually 

claims that production is increasing. It is critical to note that this is attributed exclusively to production on State and private lands where the Administration’s policies do not govern energy policy. Oil production on state and private lands has risen 

by 11 percent and natural gas production has increased by 40 percent since 2000. 

These figures are particularly disconcerting at a time when rising gas prices are 

devastating American families and small businesses. 

Similar impediments affect the wind and solar energy industries as well. During 

the past 4 years, the wind industry has added over 35 percent of all new generating 

capacity in the United States, and U.S. wind power capacity represents more than 

20 percent of the world’s installed wind power. 

Nevertheless, due to unreliable Federal policies and overregulation, the wind industry has lost 10,000 jobs since 2009 according to a recent report. Limitations on 

the zones in which solar development is permitted have concerned many in solar 

energy producers and hindered their ability to provide additional electricity to the 

grid, lower costs for ratepayers, and provide clean energy jobs. 

The Planning for American Energy Act would set the United States on a path for 

energy development that follows the most logical criteria—the needs of our people. 

Under the legislation, the non-partisan Energy Information Administration provides 

the projected energy needs of the United States for the next 30 years to the Secretary of the interior and the Secretary of Agriculture on which they then base 4 

year production plans. 

The bill requires that all domestic sources; oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, hydropower, geothermal, oil shale and minerals needed for energy development be included in the plan. It accomplishes this responsibly, without removing a single environmental safeguard. 

Because local communities in districts like mine play such a large role in domestic 

energy production, H.R. 1394 requires that the Secretary of the Interior and the 

Secretary of Agriculture solicit input from affected States, federally recognized 

tribes, local governments, and the public in developing each 4 year strategy. 

9

The bottom line is that the American people need a reliable supply of affordable 

energy. We need to put into place a sustainable energy plan that responsibly advances the development of alternative and traditional resources, generates economic 

growth, lowers energy costs, and gets Americans working. My bill puts words into 

action, and would force the Administration to meet America’s energy needs. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. You are welcome. We will now hear from our witnesses. I invite them to come forward. 

We have Ms. Jamie Connell, BLM Acting Deputy Director of the 

U.S. Department of the Interior; Commissioner Dan Sullivan, Department of Natural Resources for the State of Alaska, and Ms. 

Charlotte Brower, Mayor of the North Slope Borough. 

Like all of our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in 

full in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements to 5 minutes. 

Our microphones are not automatic, so you need to turn them on 

when you are ready to begin. 

I also want to explain how our timing lights work. When you 

begin to speak, our clerk will start the timer and a green light will 

appear. After 4 minutes a yellow light will appear. And at that 

time you should begin to conclude your statement. After 5 minutes 

the red light comes on, and you may complete your sentence. But 

at that time I must ask that you stop. 

Ms. Connell, you may begin. I do have to first say, and I don’t 

know if this was you or your staff who were derelict, but the written materials pertaining to your testimony were not given to the 

Subcommittee on time. They were late, they were submitted past 

the deadline. And, as a result, staff had to work extra hours in the 

evening to accommodate that. So we would ask that you just make 

sure that not happen in the future. 

Ms. CONNELL. We will do our best. I appreciate that. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. You may begin. 

STATEMENT OF JAMIE CONNELL, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE 

INTERIOR 

Ms. CONNELL. Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of 

the Interior on four bills pertaining to the development of renewable and conventional energy on our Nation’s public lands. The Bureau of Land Management, the BLM, administers over 245 million 

surface acres and approximately 700 million acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the Nation. 

Together with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the BLM also provides permitting and oversight services on approximately 56 million acres of land held in trust by the Federal Government on behalf of tribes and individual Indian owners. The BLM’s management of public land resources and protection of public land values 

results in the extraordinary economic benefits to local economies 

and to this Nation. These benefits are not only economic, but also 

contribute substantially to America’s energy security. 

From the beginning of this Administration, the Department of 

the Interior has made it a priority to permit scientifically based, 

environmentally sound development of renewable and conventional 

10

energy and mineral resources on the Nation’s public lands. Our 

goal is to ensure a clean energy future through environmentally responsible development of conventional and renewable energy on 

Federal and Indian lands. 

Nearly 38 million acres of Federal mineral estate are under lease 

for oil and gas. Since 2008, the BLM has approved more than 

23,000 drilling permits. The BLM is also investing in environmentally sound renewable energy projects on public lands, harnessing wind, solar, and geothermal resources that will provide 

enough energy and electricity to power nearly 4 million homes, and 

support an estimated 14,000 construction and operations jobs. 

The BLM supports H.R. 555, which allows the BLM to expand 

upon its success with the oil and gas Internet lease auction pilot 

project. The BLM would welcome the opportunity to work with the 

sponsor and the Committee to address some minor amendments, 

including discretion on the timing of lease sales. 

Regarding H.R. 1964, the Administration remains firmly committed to facilitating environmentally responsible development in 

the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, and we welcome the opportunity to work with the Committee and the public to continue 

to develop NPR–A in an environmentally responsible manner. 

President Obama directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct 

annual oil and gas lease sales in NPR–A. The BLM has followed 

through on this direction, with lease sales in the NPR–A in December 2011, November 2012, and is planning another lease sale in 

November of this year. 

The Department supports the goal of facilitating the development 

of oil and gas resources in NPR–A, but opposes provisions of 

H.R. 1964, including the issuance of a new integrated activity plan 

and Environmental Impact Statement that would undermine the 

extensive public resource planning that the BLM completed for 

NPR–A recently; the timelines required by the bill that may result 

in shortcuts to public involvement; requirement of other laws, including the National Environmental Policy Act; and the suggestion 

that the Department pre-approve rights of ways on millions of 

acres of lands that industry may never seek to develop. 

The Department opposes H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and 

Energy Act. The bill would essentially strip the BLM of its ability 

to issue APDs based on important reviews and clearances. The provisions establishing the Federal permit streamlining projects would 

be time-consuming and costly. The bill also would reverse our oil 

and gas leasing reform policy that established an orderly, open, 

and environmentally sound process for developing oil and gas resources on public lands. 

Finally, the bill would overturn the BLM’s administration of a 

balanced, carefully planned research development and demonstration oil shale program, and the proposed rule would ensure a fair 

return to the American taxpayers and evaluate necessary safeguards to protect water resources and wildlife habitat. 

Finally, the Department opposes H.R. 1394, the Planning for 

American Energy Act. The bill would direct Federal land managers 

to administer public lands for the primary purpose of energy development, rather than balanced multiple-use management, which includes a public process based onsite-specific analysis and considerVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
11

ation. The bill’s requirement that the Department take all necessary actions to achieve energy production goals on Federal lands 

fails to acknowledge the comprehensive approach to expand safe 

and responsible energy development already in place. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony; I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Connell follows:]

PREPARE STATEMENT OF JAMIE CONNELL, ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF

LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

H.R. 1964—NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE ALASKA ACCESS ACT; H.R. 1965—FEDERAL

LANDS JOBS AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT; H.R. 1394—PLANNING FOR AMERICAN EN- ERGY ACT OF 2013; AND H.R. 555—BLM LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS ACT

Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the Department of the Interior (Department) on four bills pertaining to the development of renewable and conventional energy and other mineral resources on our Nation’s onshore public lands: 

H.R. 1964, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act; H.R. 1965, the Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act; H.R. 1394, the Planning for American Energy Act of 2013; and H.R. 555, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act. 

Background

Since the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Department of the Interior 

(‘‘Department’’) has made it a priority to permit scientifically-based, environmentally-sound development of renewable and conventional energy and mineral resources on the Nation’s public lands. Through the Secretary’s New Energy Frontier 

initiative, the Department has been at the forefront of the Administration’s efforts, 

outlined in the Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future to create jobs, to reduce the 

Nation’s dependence on fossil fuels and oil imports, and to reduce carbon and other 

pollution associated with energy production and use. Facilitating renewable energy 

development is a major component of the Department’s all-of-the-above energy strategy along with effective management of conventional energy programs. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) administers over 245 million surface 

acres—more than any other Federal agency—which are located primarily in 12 

Western States, including Alaska, as well as approximately 700 million acres of onshore subsurface mineral estate throughout the Nation. The BLM, together with the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, also provides permitting and oversight services on approximately 56 million acres of land held in trust by the Federal Government on 

behalf of tribes and individual Indian owners. 

The BLM’s management of public land resources and protection of public land values results in extraordinary economic benefits to local communities and to the Nation. Public lands generated an estimated $4.6 billion in revenues in 2012, returning 

more than $4 for every $1 invested. Beyond this efficient production of non-tax revenue for the U.S. Treasury, the BLM’s management of public lands supports significant economic activity and hundreds of thousands of jobs for Americans. One critical 

economic benefit BLM provides the Nation is its contribution to America’s energy 

portfolio. We estimate that oil, gas, coal, and non-metallic mineral activities on the 

Federal mineral estate directly and indirectly support nearly 2 percent of jobs in 

Colorado, nearly 10 percent of jobs in New Mexico, and over 40 percent of jobs in 

Wyoming. The BLM continues its important role in supplying feedstock and transmission access for the Nation’s electrical infrastructure. Approximately 12 percent 

of domestic natural gas production, which is helping drive a resurgence in American 

industry, is derived from BLM-managed lands. In addition to responding to increased demand for natural gas, coal produced from BLM’s Federal mineral estate 

has provided approximately 22 percent of U.S. electrical production annually over 

the last 10 years. 

These benefits are not only economic, but also contribute substantially to America’s energy security. Nearly 38 million acres of Federal mineral estate are under 

lease for oil and gas; however, only about 33 percent of this acreage is currently in 

production. Approximately 7,000 applications for permits to drill (APDs) have been 

approved by the BLM, but were not drilled as of September 30, 2012. 

Since 2008, the BLM has approved more than 23,000 APDs. As part of the BLM’s 

ongoing efforts to ensure efficient processing of oil and gas permit applications, the 

BLM is preparing to implement new automated tracking systems that could reduce 

the review period for drilling permits by two-thirds and expedite the sale and processing of Federal oil and gas leases. The new system for drilling permits will track 

12

applications through the entire review process and quickly flag any missing or incomplete information—greatly reducing the back-and-forth between the BLM and 

industry applicants currently needed to amend paper applications. 

The BLM also is investing in environmentally sound renewable energy projects, 

harnessing wind, solar, and geothermal resources on the public lands. Since 2009, 

the BLM has approved 41 renewable energy projects, including 23 utility-scale solar 

facilities, 8 wind farms, and 10 geothermal projects, with associated transmission 

corridors and other infrastructure to connect to established power grids. If fully 

built, these projects have the potential to provide more than 12,000 megawatts of 

power—enough electricity to power nearly 4 million homes—and support an estimated 14,000 construction and operations jobs. For calendar years 2013 and 2014, 

the BLM has identified 23 renewable energy projects for review, including 14 solar 

facilities, 6 wind farms and 3 geothermal plants. 

The BLM is working with local communities, tribes, State regulators, industry, 

and other Federal agencies to ensure a clean energy future. Our goal is environmentally responsible development of conventional and renewable energy and other 

mineral resources on Federal and Indian lands with a fair return to the American 

people, tribes, and individual Indians for the use of their resources. 

H.R. 555, ‘‘BLM Live Internet Auctions Act’’

H.R. 555 amends the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct onshore oil and gas lease sales through Internet-based bidding methods, in order to expand the Nation’s onshore leasing program and to ensure the best 

return to the Federal taxpayer. The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct an 

analysis of the first 10 Internet-based lease sales and report the findings of the 

analysis to Congress within 90 days following the 10th Internet-based lease sale. 

Analysis 

The BLM supports H.R. 555, which allows the BLM to expand upon its success 

with the oil and gas Internet lease auction pilot project. The BLM would like to 

work with the Committee to include related language in the bill to provide the Secretary the discretion to hold lease sales (via the Internet or oral auction) more or 

less frequently than quarterly (as currently required by the Mineral Leasing Act) 

or within any State in which lease tracts are available and there is public interest. 

Finally, the BLM would like to work with the Committee on technical and clarifying 

modifications to the bill. 

H.R. 1964, ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’

H.R. 1964, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, directs the Department to continue a program of competitive oil and gas leasing in the 23 million-acre 

National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPR–A). On May 14, 2011, as part of an 

effort to increase safe and responsible domestic oil production, President Obama directed the Secretary of the Interior to conduct annual oil and gas lease sales in the 

NPR–A. The BLM has followed through on this direction with lease sales in the 

NPR–A in December 2011, November 2012, and is planning another lease sale in 

November of this year. The Department supports the goal of facilitating the development of oil and gas resources in the NPR–A in an environmentally responsible manner, but has several significant concerns with the bill. 

Analysis 

Many of the activities called for in H.R. 1964 are within the scope of existing Department authorities and consistent with our priorities and activities already underway. Under these authorities, 191 tracts are currently leased by the BLM in the 

NPR–A with a leased acreage of over 1.5 million acres. We would like to work with 

the Committee to move toward our shared goal of improving the efficiency of the 

oil and gas leasing and development process while maintaining safety and environmental standards in the NPR–A. 

The Department opposes bill provisions regarding the issuance of a new Integrated Activity Plan and Environmental Impact Statement (IAP/EIS). These provisions would undermine the extensive public resource planning process recently completed for the NPR–A. In 2010, the BLM moved to establish consistent management 

direction for the entire NPR–A, including the unplanned southern portion of the Reserve, through an IAP/EIS. The Secretary signed a Record of Decision (ROD) on 

February 21, 2013, that presents a balanced approach to responsible oil and gas development while providing protection to valuable surface and subsistence resources. 

The IAP/EIS and subsequent decision was the result of careful resource analysis 

and extensive public input. The lands made available for development under the 

ROD contain 72 percent of the NPR–A’s estimated economically recoverable oil and 

over half of the estimated economically recoverable gas. The ROD also requires that 

13

the BLM establish an ‘‘NPR–A Working Group’’ that will include representatives of 

North Slope tribal entities, Native corporations, and State and local governments—

entities directly affected by development within the NPR–A. We will be moving forward with this effort in the very near future. 

The bill requires the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) to complete an updated comprehensive assessment of technically recoverable conventional and unconventional 

fossil fuel resources in the NPR–A. In 2011, the USGS released its assessment of 

the economic recoverability of undiscovered, conventional oil and gas resources within the NPR–A and adjacent State waters. Because the USGS used all available information in its assessment and no new data or information has become available 

since that time, the USGS believes reassessing these resources now would not yield 

additional information. The USGS is evaluating the unconventional petroleum resources in NPR–A, with the plan to assess these resources in the future. Furthermore, a coalbed methane assessment for the North Slope, including the NPR–A, was 

completed in 2006. The results for other unconventional resources on the North 

Slope, including shale gas and tight gas, are expected to be available in 2 to 3 years. 

It is not clear from the language in the bill whether a coal assessment would be 

required. The North Slope of Alaska contains coal resources, but the cost of mining 

and transporting the coal would be substantial. The USGS, in cooperation with the 

Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, published a database compilation of published and nonconfidential unpublished coal data from the 

Cook Inlet and North Slope areas of Alaska. Despite the database, there are relatively few data with which to conduct a robust coal assessment.

The Department has additional concerns with the bill, including:

• The implication that all requested permits be issued, regardless of a proposed 

action’s potential impacts or the availability of alternatives; • The timelines required by the bill that may result in shortcuts to public involvement, comment, and review requirements of other laws, including the National 

Environmental Policy Act; • The suggestion that the Department pre-approve rights-of-way on millions of 

acres of lands that industry may never seek to develop; and • The requirement that the Secretary must ensure that other Federal permitting 

agencies comply with the deadlines set forth in the bill [Sec. 4(b)].

If enacted, these requirements would likely divert BLM resources and result in 

the delay of further development of NPR–A resources in an environmentally responsible manner. In addition, the requirement of a ‘‘direct’’ transportation route for oil 

and gas resources does not allow for considerations such as land ownership, geography, and protection of surface resources. The current IAP/EIS allows for site-specific applications for a pipeline through most of the BLM-managed lands on the 

North Slope. The BLM’s existing regulations already establish deadlines for appropriate authorizations and require prompt notification of any delays. 

The BLM’s leasing program in the NPR–A ensures that safe and responsible exploration and development of domestic oil and natural gas resources can be done 

in a manner that also protects wildlife and habitat, and honors the subsistence values of rural residents and Alaska Natives. We welcome the opportunity to work 

with the Committee, the oil and gas industry, the Alaska Native community, and 

the public to continue to develop the NPR–A in an environmentally responsible 

manner. The Administration remains firmly committed to facilitating environmentally responsible development in this region. 

H.R. 1965, ‘‘Federal Lands Jobs and Energy Security Act’’

H.R. 1965 includes various provisions intended to expedite energy development, 

but often at the expense of sound public land management, public participation, and 

environmental review. The Department opposes the bill for the reasons outlined 

below. 

Title I, Energy Permitting 

H.R. 1965 (Title I) makes numerous changes to existing authorities governing the 

permitting of Federal energy resources. The bill generally requires the BLM to process APDs within 60 days (unless NEPA review is incomplete), and stipulates that 

a submitted APD is deemed approved if the Secretary has not made a decision within 60 days. The bill makes permanent the current $6,500 permit processing fee, but 

provides that the BLM can only collect the fee when a decision is issued on the 

APD, cannot collect a fee on a resubmitted APD, and requires that 50 percent of 

the processing fee be transferred to the BLM Field Office in which the permit is 

processed. The bill provides that, subject to appropriation and up to an overall total 

of $10 million per year, not less than 25 percent of wind and solar right-of-way 

14

(ROW) authorization fees shall be available to the field office responsible for the 

lands where they are collected, not less than 25 percent of the fees shall be available 

to the BLM for permit approval activities, and not less than 25 percent shall be 

available to the Department of Interior for department-wide permitting activities. 

The bill also requires a $5,000 documentation fee for each protest filed on these permits with 50 percent of these fees remaining with local BLM Field Offices. 

The bill requires the BLM to establish a ‘‘Federal Permit Streamlining Project’’ 

in every BLM office that processes energy projects, and explicitly states the BLM 

may not require a finding of extraordinary circumstances when using section 390 

categorical exclusions of the Energy Policy Act. Finally, Title I, Subtitle D includes 

provisions pertaining to judicial review procedures. 

Analysis 

The Department opposes Title I of H.R. 1965 as it would essentially strip from 

the BLM its ability to issue APDs based on important reviews and clearances—including cultural surveys and necessary tribal consultation—and mandates unreasonable timeframes for processing APDs. The Department strongly supports efforts to 

encourage wind and solar energy development and believes funding support for 

those objectives can best be achieved through a combination of user fees and regular 

discretionary appropriations. In addition, the BLM opposes the $5,000 documentation fee submitted for each protest because it is an inappropriate economic barrier 

for the public to seek judicial review or redress of an agency decision. 

The bill’s provisions establishing ‘‘Federal Permit Streamlining Projects’’ are impractical, and would likely result in the establishment of such project offices in over 

50 of the BLM’s Field Offices. Coordination of these projects among multiple agencies would be extremely time consuming and costly, and would hinder the BLM’s 

ability to conduct its other vital land management responsibilities. In addition, the 

BLM views the availability of the extraordinary circumstances review an important 

step in assuring that a categorically excluded action does not have impacts that are 

unanticipated, and thus opposes the bill’s provisions on this point. Finally, the Department of the Interior defers to the Department of Justice regarding the provisions of the bill (Title I, Subtitle D) pertaining to judicial review procedures. 

Title II, Oil & Gas Leasing 

H.R. 1965 (Title II) reverses the oil and gas leasing reform policy initiated by 

former Secretary Salazar in January 2010 that was implemented to ensure environmental protection of important natural resources on BLM lands (BLM Instruction 

Memorandum 2010–117). The bill also requires the BLM to offer for lease no fewer 

than 25 percent of lease nominations in areas open to leasing each year; and requires that the BLM actively lease in areas designated as open when Resource Management Plans are revised; and states that acreages offered for lease shall not be 

subject to protest. Finally, the bill allows lease sales to be categorically excluded 

from further NEPA review. 

Analysis 

The Department opposes Title II of H.R. 1965. The leasing reforms that were implemented in 2010 established an orderly, open, and environmentally sound process 

for developing oil and gas resources on public lands in a manner that has maintained robust leasing and permitting. The reforms focus on making oil and gas leasing more predictable, increasing certainty for stakeholders, including industry, and 

restoring needed balance with comprehensive upfront analysis added to the development process. Requiring the BLM to offer no fewer than 25 percent of lease nominations in areas open to leasing each year is an arbitrary standard that undermines 

rational and diligent review on the basis of greatest development potential, as well 

as other economic, environmental, and health considerations. 

The BLM has concerns with the requirement that it actively lease in areas designated as open when Resource Management Plans are revised. Continuing to lease 

in some open areas in which recreational or ecological values are at risk could prevent the BLM from protecting important resource values. It could be counterproductive to efforts to develop energy resources on Federal lands if the result is 

greater near-term resource damage that, in turn, would necessitate more onerous 

restrictions on future energy development activities. In addition, limiting protests 

of oil and gas leases and providing categorical exclusions from further NEPA review 

limits the public’s opportunity to engage in decisions about the lands the BLM manages. Americans who have valid and important concerns should have an opportunity 

to participate in the management of lands that belong to them. 

15

Title III, Oil Shale 

H.R. 1965 includes provisions (Title III) regarding oil shale planning, leasing, and 

regulation. The bill would deem final the BLM’s 2008 oil shale regulations, stipulate 

that the 2008 Resource Management Plan amendments satisfy all legal and procedural requirements under any law, and require the Secretary to implement those 

actions without any further administrative action. The bill also would require the 

Secretary to hold, within 180 days of enactment, a lease sale for additional parcels 

for oil shale research, development, and demonstration leases, and, no later than 

January 1, 2016, no less than five commercial lease sales in areas with the most 

potential for oil shale development. 

Analysis 

The Department opposes the provisions in Title III of H.R. 1965 because they undermine the BLM’s careful and transparent development of oil shale regulations and 

environmental plans initiated in response to the current state of technology and a 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) report finding that oil shale development 

could have significant negative impacts on the quality and quantity of water resources. The bill also disregards the fact that there are currently no proven economically viable and environmentally sound ways in the United States to extract liquid 

fuel or suitable refinery feedstock from oil shale on a commercial scale. 

Beginning in 2010, the BLM began a new public planning process to take a fresh 

look at the land use plan allocation decisions made in 2008. The BLM concluded 

that, in light of the many fundamental questions about oil shale that need to be 

answered, it is vital that the BLM administer a balanced, carefully planned research, development, and demonstration (RD&D) program that will help inform the 

agency’s decision on how to authorize future commercial oil shale development on 

public lands. On March 22, 2013, the BLM published a Record of Decision amending 

several resource management plans to encourage RD&D of oil shale on nearly 

700,000 acres in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Additionally, the BLM has developed a proposed rule governing oil shale development with the goals of ensuring a 

fair return to the American taxpayer, encouraging responsible development of Federal oil shale resources, and evaluating necessary safeguards to protect scarce water 

resources and important wildlife habitat. In late March 2013, the BLM published 

these proposed revisions for public comment. In November 2012, the BLM signed 

two leases for RD&D oil shale proposals to encourage industry to create and test 

technologies aimed at developing oil shale resources on a commercial scale. 

H.R. 1965 would disrupt these public planning and regulatory efforts. 

H.R. 1394, ‘‘Planning for American Energy Act of 2013’’

H.R. 1394 directs the Secretary of the Interior to develop a 4-year strategy for the 

development of onshore Federal energy and minerals resources—including a strategic production objective of oil and natural gas; coal; critical minerals; helium, 

wind, solar, biomass, hydropower, and geothermal energy; oil shale; and other energy production technology sources. The bill requires that actions be taken to 

achieve certain energy production objectives unless the President determines it is 

not in the national security or economic interests of the United States to do so. The 

bill further directs the completion of a programmatic EIS in accordance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which is deemed sufficient to satisfy requirements of resource management planning and land use planning associated 

with implementation of the 4-year strategy. 

Analysis 

The Department opposes H.R. 1394 because it would direct Federal land managers to manage lands for the primary purpose of energy development rather than 

make thoughtful decisions on balanced multiple-use management through a public 

process based on site specific analysis and consideration. Guided by the Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act, the BLM’s unique multiple-use management of 

public lands includes activities as varied as livestock grazing; outdoor recreation, including hunting and fishing; the conservation of natural, historical, cultural, and 

other important resources—as well as development of both conventional and renewable energy resources. 

H.R. 1394 also imposes additional layers of administrative planning for energy development on top of those which the BLM is already undertaking through existing 

authorities. These authorities already provide extensive legal and regulatory direction for the development of oil, gas, and coal from the public lands. In addition, the 

BLM has recently made significant progress on programmatic planning for a suite 

of renewable and unconventional energy resources, including wind, solar, geothermal and oil shale. 

16

Finally, the bill’s requirement that the Department take all necessary actions to 

achieve energy production goals on Federal lands fails to acknowledge the comprehensive approach to support expansion of safe and responsible energy development already in place and that the Department is committed to maintaining. The 

BLM has made significant progress in the past several years, reducing protests and 

appeals by better planning through its leasing reforms. As stated above, we continue 

to offer a healthy number and quality of lease sales, with good industry response, 

and an emphasis on permitting has produced a large inventory of permits and acreage that industry has yet to develop. 

Conclusion

Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on these four bills. 

Mr. LAMBORN. All right. I am sure you will have some. 

Commissioner Sullivan. 

STATEMENT OF DAN SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER, 

DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES, STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Good morning, Chairman Lamborn, Ranking 

Member Holt. Thank you for the opportunity to be here again. It 

is an honor to be able to talk about Alaska energy issues with this 

Committee. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, it is truly an exciting time for American’s energy 

sector. We are seeing an American energy renaissance, particularly 

with regard to hydrocarbon production on private lands, and that 

is having an enormous impact in terms of jobs, trade, deficit issues, 

even potentially foreign policy and national security issues. 

Alaska, which is one of the world’s great hydrocarbon regions, is 

focused on doing its part to contribute to this energy renaissance. 

We just had a very, very successful State legislative session, where 

we enacted tax reform, significant permitting reform, an interior 

energy plan, opportunities to commercialize our abundant North 

Slope gas, and we have also had recent reforms in the Cook Inlet 

hydrocarbon basin, near Anchorage, as a result of those reforms on 

regulation and tax issues. That basin is starting to turn around in 

a very, very significant way, producing more oil and gas. 

But, Mr. Chairman, as you know, over half of Alaska is Federal 

lands, controlled by this body and Federal agencies. We believe it 

is important that they do their part in promoting the American 

energy renaissance in Alaska, and that means increased access to 

Federal lands, where estimates of energy resources are in the tens 

of billions of barrels of oil and hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of 

gas. 

But in the past 4 years, Alaska’s access—indeed, America’s access—to Federal lands in Alaska has been significantly restricted, 

and we fear more lost opportunity coming soon. This is a significant concern for Alaskans, and should be a concern for the Congress. I would like to provide two noteworthy examples. 

First, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which was set 

aside by Congress to help secure a supply of oil and gas for our 

country. After a planning process that virtually ignored the State 

of Alaska’s numerous comments, the Department of the Interior 

withdrew almost half, 11 million acres, of NPR lands from oil and 

gas leasing. Interior’s record of decision also made the ability to 

construct a pipeline across NPR–A to Pump Station 1 of the TransAlaska Pipeline more uncertain. 

17

Second, with regard to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, we 

fear a replay of the NPR process and result. The Department of the 

Interior is soon to release a Comprehensive Management Plan for 

ANWR that, among other things, will likely ignore Congress’s directive to assess the oil and gas resource potential in the coastal 

area of ANWR often known as the 1002 Area. 

There are three common themes that play here. Both NPR–A 

and the 1002 Area in Alaska have enormous resource potential, 

very likely some of the largest oil and gas basins in North America. 

Because of this, Congress has, in Federal law, emphasized the importance of assessing these areas for oil and gas exploration and 

possibly development. 

And, third, despite these congressional directives, the Federal 

Government has chosen to selectively disregard important Federal 

laws and the concerns of the State of Alaska and our citizens by 

significantly restricting and limiting access to these lands. 

So, what is the State of Alaska doing? We have asked the Federal Government to start over, with regard to an NPR–A integrated 

activity plan. And, therefore, the goals of H.R. 1964 and the other 

bills here are goals that the State supports. 

And with regard to the upcoming ANWR Comprehensive Management Plan, we have decided to do the Federal Government’s 

work for them. On Monday, Governor Parnell and I announced the 

release of Alaska’s 1002 Area Assessment and Exploration Proposal, which brings the State of Alaska’s world-class expertise, experience, highest environmental standards, best practices, and new 

technology, and significant capital, $50 million of the State’s 

money, to conduct a 7-year exploration program in the 1002 Area. 

The goal of this world-class scientific proposal is to enable the 

Congress and the American people to definitively know what abundance of resource wealth lies beneath the 1002 Area. It is a modest 

proposal. We think it can get bipartisan support. Representative 

Holt, I would love to brief you on this in more detail. 

We have presented it to the Department of the Interior, and we 

have asked them to include this as part of their comprehensive 

ANWR Management Plan that is going to be coming out soon. And 

we certainly, of course, would welcome Congress’s support of this 

proposal because we think it asks a very important question: Why 

would you not want to know what the resource potential is in the 

1002 Area, when your mission is to manage that land? Thank you 

very much, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sullivan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAN SULLIVAN, COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL

RESOURCES, STATE OF ALASKA

H.R. 1964, ‘‘NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE ALASKA ACCESS ACT’’

I. Introduction

Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Holt, and members of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, on behalf of Governor Sean Parnell, 

the State of Alaska welcomes this opportunity to testify as part of this Committee’s 

important work to protect and expand U.S. onshore energy production on Federal 

lands. 

In particular, I thank you for the opportunity to emphasize to this Committee and 

to the rest of your colleagues in the U.S. Congress the important role that the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPR–A) serves in the State of Alaska and its 

enormous potential for responsible resource development. But in order to reach this 

18

potential, we must see a shift in Federal decision making. The State of Alaska has 

continued to express our serious concerns with recent Federal planning processes 

for the NPR–A and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) that disregard the 

State’s comments and are likely contrary to the Alaska National Interest Lands and 

Conservation Act (ANILCA). We are ready and willing to partner with the Federal 

Government to assess oil and gas potential and responsibly develop these areas for 

the benefit of Alaska and the United States. 

Biographical Information 

Before getting into substantive matters, I would like to briefly mention my professional background as it pertains to this testimony. I have been serving as Commissioner of the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (DNR), a State agency of over 

1,100 personnel, since December 2010. DNR manages one of the largest portfolios 

of oil, gas, minerals, land, water, timber, and renewable energy resources in the 

world, and is staffed by some of the world’s leading experts on responsible exploration and development in the Arctic. 

Prior to being appointed as the DNR Commissioner, I have served as Alaska’s Attorney General and the U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Economic, Energy, and 

Business Affairs. 

Overview of Today’s Testimony 

Alaska’s North Slope is one of the most prolific and productive hydrocarbon basins 

in North America. Its resource base has been the foundation of the State’s economy 

for 40 years, and continues to offer opportunities to Alaska and the Nation as a 

whole. 

Recent years have seen a surge in investment in the oil and gas industry, and 

increases in unconventional production in the continental United States have created an energy boom that few would have predicted 10 years ago. The strategic benefits of this surge in domestic energy production are numerous, ranging from employment opportunities in an otherwise troubled economy to increased energy security and a strengthened foreign policy. 

However, even in this environment, throughput in the Trans Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS) has steadily declined since the 1990s despite the enormous conventional 

resources that remain on Alaska’s North Slope, and the untold unconventional resources that are beginning to be explored. 

It is time for Alaska to take its place in the oil and gas renaissance that is occurring in the rest of the United States. Under Governor Parnell’s leadership and the 

Alaska State Legislature’s major actions during the 2013 legislative session, the 

State of Alaska is doing its part to reform and modernize our permitting system, 

lease acreage in order to spur exploration and development, and increase our competitiveness through oil tax reform. 

Unfortunately, we continue to have serious concerns about access to Federal lands 

for hydrocarbon exploration and development in Alaska. Federal permitting has 

been an anchor on responsible resource development on State lands, and highly prospective Federal lands—such as the NPR–A and ANWR—have either been effectively locked up with onerous permitting and regulatory delays and bad planning, 

or excluded from exploration and development entirely.

My testimony today will focus on the following:

• NPR–A and the ANWR 1002 Area are enormous hydrocarbon basins that, once 

properly assessed and responsibly developed, would help reverse the TAPS 

throughput decline. 

• Selection of the B–2 Preferred Alternative in the NPR–A Final Integrated Activity Plan (IAP) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) does not reflect the 

State of Alaska’s comments and concerns. We have therefore asked that the current process be stopped and for the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to reengage with the State in a meaningful, productive discussion to develop an alternative for the IAP. 

• The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) for ANWR is essentially unresponsive to the State of Alaska’s concerns and is biased against an honest assessment of resource development potential for the ANWR 1002 Area. In fact, 

it does not include an assessment of oil and gas potential at all, which we believe is required by law. 

• Therefore, the State of Alaska has taken this requirement upon ourselves and 

submitted a comprehensive ‘‘Oil and Gas Resource Evaluation and Exploration 

Proposal for the ANWR 1002 Area’’ to Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary 

Jewell on Monday, May 20, 2013. Additionally, in his letter to Secretary Jewell, 

Governor Parnell announced that the State is not only lending its expertise, but 

19

also its checkbook to fund up to $50 million toward implementing the 3D seismic program for the 1002 Area if the Federal Government shows a positive indication that they would partner with the State on such a program.

As this testimony will demonstrate, the State of Alaska supports legislative measures that promote access to Federal lands for responsible resource development and 

bring timeliness and efficiency to the Federal land management and permitting 

processes. Federal policy must take a new direction to realize the opportunities and 

strategic benefits that responsible resource development plays for the Nation. The 

State of Alaska fully supports H.R. 1964, which includes the following measures:

1. Expeditious leasing program; 

2. Pipeline and road corridor permitting and construction; 

3. Reset of an Integrated Activity Plan; 

4. Holding the Secretary of the Interior to reasonable development goals; 

5. Holding the Department of the Interior to transparent permitting deadlines; 

and 

6. Updating the Resource Assessment within the NPR–A, which we assume would 

include both seismic and drilling activities. 

II. The NPR–A and the ANWR 1002 Area Offer Enormous Potential for Responsible Resource Development

Alaska is one of the Nation’s most critical and prolific oil-producing States. Even 

though production is only about one-third of what it was at its peak in 1989, Alaska’s North Slope, both on and offshore, remains a world-class hydrocarbon basin 

with extraordinary potential. According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), Alaska accounts for over 30 percent of the Nation’s technically recoverable oil and gas 

resources, with the North Slope estimated to hold approximately 40 billion barrels 

of technically recoverable conventional oil and 236 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. 

These numbers are likely dwarfed by Alaska’s unconventional resources, such as 

shale oil and gas, heavy and viscous oil, and gas hydrates. 

National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska (NPR–A) 

In 2010, the USGS estimated that 896 million barrels of conventional, undiscovered oil and 53 trillion cubic feet of conventional, undiscovered non-associated 

gas exist within NPR–A and adjacent State waters. Unfortunately the 2010 assessment significantly reduced previous estimates, but did not include important geologic and geophysical data sets. The 2010 assessment also did not benefit from complete review and input from local experts. The State sent several letters pointing 

out flaws in the information and analysis relied on to lower the estimates. 

Regardless, these estimates are still significant and developing these resources 

would help stimulate Alaska’s economy and contribute to the Nation’s energy needs. 

On May 14, 2011, President Obama directed the DOI to conduct annual oil and 

gas lease sales in the NPR–A, and on December 7, 2011, the BLM generated winning bids totaling $3,069,638 and covering 17 tracts on about 141,739 acres in their 

NPR–A oil and gas lease sale. As noted by BLM, the sale demonstrated industry 

interest in areas with high resource potential adjacent to State of Alaska lease 

tracts. The 2012 lease sale generated winning bids totaling $898,900 and covering 

14 tracts on about 160,088 acres. 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area 

The ANWR 1002 Area consists of 1.5 million acres of highly prospective terrain 

in the northeastern portion of the North Slope along the northern coast of ANWR. 

The region is situated between the prolific North Slope oil fields to the west and 

the petroleum-rich Canadian Mackenzie Delta province to the east. Both areas have 

proven reserves of interest to each nation. In the United States, a gas field with 

a significant volume of recoverable liquid hydrocarbons is being developed at Point 

Thomson just west of the ANWR boundary. According to the most recent comprehensive assessment, most geologists regard the 1002 Area as the most prospective unexplored onshore area in North America. 

In 1998, the USGS estimated that the entire ANWR assessment area, including 

State and Native interests, contains between 5.7 and 16 billion barrels of technically 

recoverable oil, with a mean (expected value) of 10.4 billion barrels. Most of this volume of oil, 74 percent, was ascribed to the federally controlled 1002 Area, with the 

range of predicted technically recoverable oil between 4.3 and 11.8 billion barrels, 

with a mean of 7.7 billion barrels. For comparison, the Prudhoe Bay field, the largest oil field in North America, was originally estimated to hold 9.6 billion barrels 

that was deemed technically recoverable by its primary operator, BP. Cumulative 

production to date has exceeded 12 billion barrels of oil. The Prudhoe Bay field was 

the impetus for the construction of TAPS and sent Alaska oil production to a peak 

20

level of 2.2 million barrels per day in 1988. Alaska daily production has dropped 

below 600,000 barrels per day in 2012. 

III. The NPR–A Final IAP EIS Disregards the State of Alaska’s Concerns 

and Should Be Repealed and a New IAP Issued That Encourages Accessing and Developing Abundant Hydrocarbon Reserves Within the 

Reserve

While the State of Alaska generally supports the overall intent of the NPR–A IAP 

EIS planning process to provide further opportunities for oil and gas exploration in 

the reserve, we have continually expressed our serious concerns regarding many aspects of the plan, most recently the selection of the B–2 Preferred Alternative in 

the Final IAP EIS. As recent as January 29, 2013, Governor Parnell asked Secretary Salazar to stop the current planning process and re-engage with the State 

in a meaningful productive discussion to develop an alternative for the IAP. 

On September 12, 2012, Governor Parnell notified Secretary Salazar that the 

State was withdrawing from the planning process as a cooperating agency under the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) because of repeated refusals by 

the BLM to consider the State’s issues and concerns. The surprise announcement 

of the B–2 Preferred Alternative without prior notice or discussions with the State 

or the North Slope Borough convinced the State a meaningful process was not going 

to be provided. While the State is willing to work with BLM again, the State will 

not participate in another flawed ‘‘check the box’’ type of process. 

As presently selected, the B–2 Preferred Alternative continues to selectively disregard Congressional direction provided under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (Production Act), as amended; the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA); and the Federal Land Policy and Management 

Act of 1976, and inappropriately applies administrative policy to the NPR–A. Congressional intent for the Production Act clearly indicates that the Secretary’s authority to protect surface values in the Reserve was intended to minimize adverse 

impacts on the environment, not to be used as a prohibition on oil and gas activities. 

The purpose of the withdrawal that created the NPR–A was to secure a supply of 

oil and gas. All subsequent Congressional direction authorizes the Secretary to manage activities in the NPR–A consistent with its primary purpose to responsibly explore and develop oil and gas resources. The B–2 Preferred Alternative is inconsistent with this mandate. 

The foundation for the B–2 Preferred Alternative is in the USGS’s 2010 updated 

assessment of oil and gas resources in the NPR–A. The survey estimates quantities 

of technically recoverable but undiscovered conventional oil and gas in the NPR–A. 

As stated above, the 2010 assessment significantly reduced previous estimates, but 

did not include important geologic and geophysical data sets. The 2010 assessment 

also did not benefit from complete review and input from local experts. The State 

sent several letters pointing out flaws in the information and analysis relied on to 

lower the estimates. Since these estimates are the foundation for the IAP and EIS, 

it is imperative the information is accurate. 

While encouraged by Secretary Salazar’s intent stated in the December 19, 2012, 

Memorandum to BLM to ensure that the plan clarifies that ‘‘. . . nothing in the 

IAP/EIS is intended to act as a bar to potential pipelines or otherwise make construction of such pipelines impracticable,’’ there are numerous aspects of the plan 

that, if left unchanged, will both hamper construction of pipelines necessary to 

transport offshore oil and gas resources to TAPS, including resources from State offshore leases, and preclude oil and gas exploration and development in the NPR–A. 

The Memorandum also directed BLM to engage in additional outreach efforts with 

local communities to look for ways to ensure continuing dialogue with local communities and tribes on key implementation issues, such as future pipeline issues, leasing questions, subsistence issues and related matters. While additional outreach is 

both welcome and appropriate, since the B–2 Preferred Alternative did not receive 

public review as required under NEPA, the State has strongly urged that a new 

public comment period be added. 

Other specific issues the State has raised regarding the B–2 Preferred Alternative 

include: management of the Reserve as a conservation system unit; wilderness reviews and management consistent with wilderness characteristics; Wild and Scenic 

River reviews; restrictions on potential pipeline development; and general ownership 

and development issues. 

21

1 75 Fed. Reg. 17763, 17764 (April 7, 2010). 

2 75 Fed. Reg. at 17763–64. 

3 75 Fed. Reg. at 17764. 

4See 16 U.S.C. § 3142(i) (‘‘Until otherwise provided for in law enacted after December 2, 1980, 

all public lands within the coastal plain are withdrawn from all forms of entry or appropriation 

under the mining laws, and from operation of the mineral leasing laws, of the United States.’’); 

16 U.S.C. § 3231 (the process for allowing the President to recommend to Congress to open Federal lands within Alaska to mineral development does not apply to lands within ANWR). 5 42 U.S.C. § 4332; N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147, 

1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (‘‘This ‘alternatives provision’ . . . requires the agency to give full and 

meaningful consideration to all reasonable alternatives.’’); California v. Block, 690 F.2d 753 (9th 

Cir. 1982) (holding that the agency should have considered the alternative of allocating more 

than one-third of the land to the wilderness category). 6 Natural Res. Defense Council, Inc. v. Morton, 458 F.2d 827, 837 (D.C. Cir. 1972); see also 

Save Our Cumberland Mts. v. Kempthorne, 453 F.3d 334, 343–344 (6th Cir. 2006) (observing 

that statutory limitations on an agency’s decision making authority cannot limit the range of 

alternatives an agency must consider). See generally D. Mandelker NEPA Law and Litigation

§§ 9:19, 9:24 (2d. ed. 2007) (collecting cases). 7Westlands Water Dist. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 376 F.3d 853, 866 (9th Cir. 2004). 

IV. The ANWR CCP Does Not Include an Assessment of the 1002 Area’s Potential for Oil and Gas Exploration and Development as Required by 

Law

Unfortunately, the same flaws in the NPR–A IAP EIS process are being repeated 

by the ANWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and EIS. In some 

ways, they are premised on the same informational gaps and concerns. 

The State of Alaska participated in several scoping and comment periods concerning this plan. Our comments and letters encouraged the DOI to consider the potential for oil and gas exploration and development in the 1002 Area. Indeed, we 

believe that such consideration is required by law. This is an important point that 

deserves a detailed explanation. 

When I served as Attorney General for the State of Alaska, I submitted a comment letter to the manager of ANWR on the initial CCP and EIS Notice of Intent. 

The following is an excerpt from this letter, making the case that the Department 

of Interior’s position lacks legal authority. 

The purpose of the Notice was to advise Federal and State agencies and the public 

of (1) the Service’s ‘‘intention to conduct detailed planning on this refuge and (2) 

[to] obtain suggestions and information on the scope of issues to be considered in 

the EIS and during the development of the CCP.’’ 1 The Notice also explained that 

the Service will review whether to recommend that Congress place ANWR lands 

within the National Wilderness Preservation System,2 but did not consider oil and 

gas exploration or development. 

The Service has said that it will not consider oil and gas development before it 

issues a revised CCP and, apparently, the EIS.3 It explained that drilling in ANWR 

is off-limits and only Congress has the authority to lift the ban.4 No other explanation for limiting the comments was given. The Service therefore concluded that 

it is unnecessary to require the agency to consider the environmental impacts of a 

prohibited activity. 

There are at least three significant problems with the Service’s position. First,

NEPA provides that Federal agencies must ‘‘study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves 

unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.’’ 5 There is 

obviously a conflict over alternative uses for the 1002 Area. Hence, the Service must 

consider oil and gas development as an alternative. 

Second, ‘‘[t]he mere fact that an alternative requires legislative implementation 

does not automatically establish it as beyond the domain of what is required for discussion, particularly since NEPA was intended to provide a basis for consideration 

and choice by the decision makers in the legislative as well as the executive 

branch.’’ 6 Thus, the Service’s rationale for limiting public comment—i.e., because 

Congress alone has the power to lift the ban on drilling, it cannot or should not consider oil and gas development as an alternative—is a rationale that courts have rejected. 

Third, where an action is taken pursuant to a specific statute, the statutory objectives of the project serve as a guide to determine the reasonableness of an agency’s 

decision to limit the scope of an EIS.7 Here, the Service has unreasonably restricted 

the scope of the public comment period to exclude discussion of oil and gas development because ANILCA expressly requires the Service to consider how oil and gas 

development will impact wildlife and the environment. 

More specifically, ANILCA provides that the purpose of Section 1002 ‘‘is to provide for a comprehensive and continuing inventory of the assessment of the fish and 

22

8 16 U.S.C. § 3142(a). 

9 16 U.S.C. § 3142(h)(6).

wildlife resources . . . an analysis of the impacts of oil and gas exploration development, and production, and to authorize exploratory activity within the coastal 

plain[.]’’ 8 The statute goes on to provide that the Secretary must also provide Congress with recommendations ‘‘with respect to whether further exploration for, and 

the development and production of, oil and gas within the coastal plain should be 

permitted and, if so, what additional legal authority is necessary to ensure that the 

adverse effects of such activities on fish and wildlife, their habitats, and other resources are avoided or minimized.’’ 9 Similarly, Section 1005 of ANILCA provides 

that the Secretary ‘‘shall work closely with the State of Alaska and Native Village 

and Regional Corporations in evaluating the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production . . . on the wildlife resources of these lands[.]’’

Accordingly, because the Department of Interior, and therefore the Service, is expressly required by statute to evaluate the impacts of oil and gas exploration, it is 

a violation of NEPA for the Service to limit the scope of public comments on this 

issue. 

Indeed, the Service’s decision to restrict public comment begs several questions: 

How can the Service know if new information exists related to the environmental 

effects of oil and gas development if it refuses to consider public comments on this 

issue? And how can the Service say that it is ‘‘looking for meaningful comments that 

will help determine the desired future conditions of the Refuge and address the full 

range of purposes’’ but then go on to limit the scope of public comment? 

Despite these and many other comments, and to our disappointment and our Nation’s detriment, the DOI has indicated it will not address oil and gas issues in the 

ANWR planning document. 

The ANWR 1002 Area was specifically set aside for the future study of whether 

it could be made available for responsible oil and gas exploration and development. 

The area holds a very rich supply of oil—oil that the Nation needs, is technically 

recoverable, and that the vast majority of Alaskans want to develop. The draft CCP 

goes to great lengths to discuss the ‘‘benefits’’ associated with designating the Refuge lands as wilderness, but offers nothing to explain the trade-offs and lost opportunities associated with precluding responsible development of the 1002 Area’s rich 

oil and gas resources. Given the explicit direction in ANILCA for the 1002 Area, not 

only is this contrary to NEPA requirements, it is grossly irresponsible. 

V. The State of Alaska Has Developed a Detailed, Scientific Resource Evaluation and Exploration Proposal for the ANWR 1002 Area and Will 

Fund up to $50 Million to Implement the Proposal

For these reasons, Alaska has stepped up to help complete the work the Federal 

Government seems unwilling to do. On Monday, May 20, 2013, Governor Parnell announced that the State of Alaska has prepared an ‘‘Oil and Gas Resource Evaluation 

and Exploration Proposal for the ANWR 1002 Area.’’ This detailed proposal satisfies 

a component that should have been included, but has been consistently omitted, 

from the ongoing CCP process. The detailed plan proposed three primary things:

1. Completion of a 3D seismic program in ANWR’s 1002 Area; 

2. Planning and permitting that would entail environmental studies and Federal, 

State and local permitting approvals based on the interpretation of the 3D seismic 

data to prepare for exploration drilling; and 

3. Completion of a wintertime exploration plan, using ice roads and ice pads, to 

define the oil and gas potential in the 1002 Area with minimum environmental impact.

As the proposal describes, accurately defining the oil and gas resource potential 

in the 1002 Area is a critical part of understanding the value of the 1002 Area to 

the Nation. It is also a critical factor in understanding the human environment associated with ANWR and Alaska’s North Slope. 

The proposal’s reasonable, phased approach focuses on potential impacts to the 

environment and how to best mitigate or completely avoid them. The most important mitigation measure of this entire proposal is to make it an almost exclusively 

winter program. The 3D seismic and exploration drilling activities would only be 

conducted during the winter when ice roads and ice pads are required. Alaska is 

the foremost expert in the world on ice road and ice pad construction in the Arctic 

with very minimal impact. 

Combined with the State of Alaska’s very high environmental standards and best 

practices using new technology—like extended reach or directional drilling—our proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
23

posal can be conducted with very little to no impact on the surrounding environment. This point is critical: the debate on ANWR has not kept up with the advances 

in technology and best practices, all of which dramatically lessen the surface footprint and impact of any Arctic work. We see this every day in Alaska. 

Not only did the State of Alaska develop this plan, but we are also providing the resources to implement the plan. Governor Parnell has pledged to request up to $50 

million from the Alaska Legislature to add to Federal funding that we hope will be 

made available for this exploration program. Alaska stands ready to provide its oil 

and gas expertise, and now we have offered a major financial commitment to advance what Congress and the DOI have stated is critical: a full assessment of the 

oil and gas potential in the 1002 Area. 

Section 1005 of ANILCA provides that the Secretary ‘‘shall work closely with the 

State of Alaska and Native Village and Regional Corporations in evaluating the impacts of oil and gas exploration, development, and production . . . on the wildlife 

resources of these lands[.]’’ We are poised to do that. The Federal Government cannot legitimately evaluate impacts unless it knows the breadth of the oil and gas resource it stands to recover for Americans’ benefit. 

President Obama has also recognized the need to use comprehensive information 

when making decisions in the Arctic. The White House’s recently released ‘‘National 

Strategy for the Arctic Region’’ stresses a partnership with Alaska and Alaska Native organizations, and the use of scientific research to inform Arctic energy decision-making. 

We are eager to strengthen our relationship with the Federal Government, Native 

leaders, and other Alaska stakeholders. An updated resource assessment in the 

1002 Area is an essential first step. Once we know what oil and gas resources underlie the 1002 Area—through the implementation of our proposal—we will be able 

to have an informed discussion about ANWR. 

In addition, we will have more thoroughly defined the economic benefits for all 

Americans: how many jobs ANWR development would create; the revenues it would 

generate for the treasury; and the secure oil supplies it would provide to the Nation. 

These numbers will confirm what many Alaskans have long advocated—that 

ANWR’s energy resources are a major national asset, and development would provide immense benefits to our country. 

Alaska stands ready to support the investment in ANWR—one that will grow our 

Nation’s economy, improves our energy security, and brings the U.S. further along 

the path to energy independence. 

VI. The State of Alaska Will Submit an Exploration Plan Based on this Proposal for the Secretary of Interior’s Approval Pursuant to ANILCA 

1002(e)

As noted above, our goal would be for the Department of Interior to adopt the 

above detailed Exploration Proposal as part of the Department of Interior’s CCP. 

For the reasons stated above, including the fact that this proposal will have limited 

environmental impact, we believe it is strongly in the best interest of the country 

and the State of Alaska for the Department of the Interior to make this Exploration 

Proposal part of the CCP. The leaders of the North Slope Borough and Arctic Slope 

Regional Corporation agree with this course of action. 

However, because we are not confident that the Department of the Interior will 

do this, we also have a plan pursuant to ANILCA to directly apply to the Secretary 

of the Department of the Interior for acceptance of this plan as required under Federal law. ANILCA Section 1002(e) provides:

EXPLORATION PLANS—(1) After the initial guidelines are prescribed 

under subsection (d), any person including the U.S. Geological Survey may 

submit one or more plans for exploratory activity (hereinafter in this section referred to as ‘‘exploration plans’’) to the Secretary for approval. An exploration plan must set forth such information as the Secretary may require in order to determine whether the plan is consistent with the guidelines, including, but not limited to—

(A) A description and schedule of the exploratory activity proposed to be undertaken; 

(B) A description of the equipment, facilities, and related manpower that would 

be used in carrying out the activity; 

(C) The area in which the activity would be undertaken; and 

(D) A statement of the anticipated effects that the activity may have on fish and 

wildlife, their habitats and the environment.

(2) Upon receiving any exploration plan for approval, the Secretary shall 

promptly publish notice of the application and the text of the plan in the 

24

Federal Register and newspapers of general circulation in the State. The 

Secretary shall determine, within 120 days after any plan is submitted for 

approval, if the plan is consistent with the guidelines established under 

subsection (d). If the Secretary determines that the plan is so consistent, 

he shall approve the plan: except that no plan shall be approved during the 

2-year period following the date of enactment of this Act. Before making the 

determination, the Secretary shall hold at least one public hearing in the 

State for purposes of receiving the comments and views of the public on the 

plan. . . .

The State of Alaska will be submitting an Exploration Plan based on this reasonable resource evaluation and exploration proposal that we believe meets all of the 

criteria of ANILCA Section 1002(e). It should be noted that if such criteria are met, 

the Secretary of the Interior is mandated by law to approve such plan. 

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD FROM THE HONORABLE SEAN PARNELL

GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF ALASKA, 

ANCHORAGE, AK, MAY 18, 2013. 

The Honorable SALLY JEWELL, Secretary,

U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC 20240.

DEAR SECRETARY JEWELL,

Congratulations on your nomination and confirmation to lead the Department of 

the Interior. Your leadership and decisions will be significant to the future of the 

State of Alaska and the United States. I wish you the best and offer assistance and 

partnership from my Administration. 

One area under your management is the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), as described in Section 1002 of the Alaska National Interest 

Lands Act. The 1002 Area and the remainder of ANWR are the subject of a multiyear planning process led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to update the 

ANWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). My Administration has participated in several scoping and comment periods in regard to the CCP. Our comments 

and letters have encouraged DOI to consider the potential for oil and gas exploration and development in the 1002 Area. Indeed, we believe that such a consideration is required by law. To our disappointment, the Department of the Interior has 

indicated that they have no intention of considering this alternative for the 1002 

Area. 

Therefore, the State of Alaska would like to offer you two items. The first is the 

Oil and Gas Resource Evaluation and Exploration Proposal (the ‘‘Exploration Proposal’’)—a detailed proposal that satisfies a component that should have been included, but has been consistently omitted, from the ongoing CCP process. The Exploration Proposal is available at 

http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/resources_files/ANWR_051713a.pdf 

http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/resources_files/ANWR_051713b.pdf 

The Alaska Department of Natural Resources, which has some of the world’s foremost experts on arctic oil and gas exploration and development issues, has dedicated 

a great deal of effort to assemble this document. I hope you will include the Exploration Proposal in the CCP’s analysis. 

As the Exploration Proposal describes, accurately defining the oil and gas resource 

potential is a critical part of understanding the value of the 1002 Area to the Nation. It is also a critical factor in understanding the human environment associated 

with ANWR and Alaska’s North Slope. With recent advancements in technology, responsible oil and gas exploration and development can be accomplished with very 

little impact on the environment. 

The second offer is a pledge to request up to $50 million from the Alaska State 

Legislature during its 2014 legislative session to help fund the 3D seismic program 

for the 1002 Area as described in the Exploration Proposal. We would of course need 

a positive indication that the Federal Government would want to partner with the 

State of Alaska on such a seismic program before submitting a budget request to 

our Legislature at the end of the year. This would be in addition to generous exploration credits that the State of Alaska would be able to provide the private sector 

in assisting with the Exploration Proposal. 

For 26 years, Americans have engaged in a debate about the wildlife and oil and 

gas resources on and underneath the 1002 Area. Unfortunately, ANWR’s oil and gas 

25

resources have been estimated using archaic 2D seismic data. State of Alaska land 

managers have found that 3D seismic data is an indispensable tool to managing our 

lands. We believe that it would be very valuable for your land managers to have 

this data to inform their planning efforts for the 1002 Area. 

I would recommend that the U.S. Geological Survey conduct this 3D seismic program in conjunction with the Alaska Division of Geological and Geophysical Surveys 

(DGGS) in order to provide a much-needed update to the 1987 USGS resources report to Congress. As you likely know, the USGS and Alaska’s DGGS have a strong, 

cooperative working relationship that dates back decades. 

I look forward to visiting with you at your earliest convenience about this and the 

many other topics that we can work together on to benefit Alaska and the United 

States. 

Sincerely, 

SEAN PARNELL, 

Governor, State of Alaska. 

State of Alaska

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 13–083

Governor Rolls Out ANWR Exploration Proposal for ANWR 1002 Area

May 20, 2013, Anchorage, Alaska—Governor Sean Parnell today announced an 

exploration proposal for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 1002 Area, 

which the State has developed and is offering to help finance. 

‘‘Accurately defining the oil and gas resource potential is a critical part of understanding the value of the 1002 Area to the Nation,’’ Governor Parnell said. ‘‘The 

Federal Government has the responsibility to do this under Federal law, but is 

clearly reluctant to do so. Therefore, we are stepping forward with our expertise and 

financing to provide a detailed resource evaluation and exploration proposal.’’

Governor Parnell outlined the proposal in a letter sent to Interior Secretary Sally 

Jewell, and he and Department of Natural Resources Commissioner Dan Sullivan 

rolled out the 187-page document during a press event at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington, D.C. 

Also speaking at the Monday event in support of the proposal were Charlotte 

Brower, mayor of the North Slope Borough, and Rex Rock, president and chief executive of the Arctic Slope Regional Corp., a regional Alaska Native corporation based 

in Barrow. 

In his letter to Secretary Jewell, Governor Parnell offered to request up to $50 

million from the Alaska Legislature to support the seismic program contained in the 

proposal. Such a budget request will be contingent on the Federal Government indicating its interest in partnering with the State of Alaska on the seismic program. 

The proposal, called the ‘‘Oil and Gas Resource Evaluation & Exploration Proposal 

for the ANWR 1002 Area,’’ was produced by the Alaska Division of Oil & Gas, and 

it is being shared with Alaska stakeholders, the U.S. Department of the Interior and 

members of Congress this week. 

The report details a 7-year seismic and exploration program to provide a much 

more definitive assessment of the magnitude of the oil and gas resources within the 

1002 Area—thought to be one of the most prolific regions for undiscovered oil in 

America. This assessment will provide Congress and the Federal Government a 

much clearer understanding of the best way to manage this small portion of ANWR 

for the benefit of all Americans. 

‘‘We hope that the Department of the Interior and Congress will partner with the 

State in adopting and implementing this exploration proposal,’’ Governor Parnell 

said. 

‘‘This is a reasonable proposal based on Alaska’s high standards for responsible 

resource development and environmental protection,’’ Sullivan said. ‘‘Implementation of this proposal will have negligible impacts on the environment and should be 

acceptable to a wide range of stakeholders.’’

Governor Parnell’s letter to Secretary Jewell and the report are available at: 

http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/resources_files/jewell_052013.pdf 

http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/resources_files/ANWR_051713a.pdf

http://gov.alaska.gov/parnell_media/resources_files/ANWR_051713b.pdf

26

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you for your testimony. 

Mayor Brower. 

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE E. BROWER, MAYOR, NORTH 

SLOPE BOROUGH 

Ms. BROWER. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

Committee. My name is Charlotte Brower. I am Mayor of the 

North Slope Borough. And I want to thank you for the opportunity 

to speak before you on H.R. 1964. 

The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act would amend 

the Naval Petroleum Production Act of 1976 to direct the Secretary 

of the Interior to conduct a competitive leasing program of oil and 

gas in the NPR–A, including holding lease sales at least once every 

year. The North Slope Borough was given some limited participation in the development of the NPR–A management plan. However, 

the Borough did not support the majority of the management decision embodied in the alternative B2 adopted in the final management plan. 

No one is more mindful of the need to protect the environment 

and preserve subsistence opportunities than the people of the 

North Slope. The potential for oil and gas leasing exploration and 

development in the NPR–A, therefore, presents difficult questions 

of priorities and policy for all North Slope organizations. Our challenge has always been to balance the development with the preservation of a healthy North Slope environment, abundant subsistence 

resources, and the vibrant traditional subsistence culture of our 

people. 

With respect to H.R. 1964, I would like to thank the Chairman 

and members of the Committee and Chairman Hastings and Congressman Young for looking at the energy needs of the Nation and 

advocating for the balanced management of the NPR–A. The final 

management for the NPR–A prohibits oil and gas leasing, on well 

over 50 percent of the NPR–A. This includes areas identified by 

BLM’s own estimates as having a high potential for oil and gas resources. 

We also support efforts to conduct updated resource assessments 

within the NPR–A to understand the resources that are available. 

This kind of information is critical to making effective and informed decisions over NPR–A management. While this hearing focuses on the Federal Government’s management of the NPR–A and 

specifically H.R. 1964, I would like to comment on a couple of policy matters that are fundamentally related. 

First, along with the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, we commend BLM for establishing the new NPR–A working group, and we 

are pleased that the BLM has obtained funding for this important 

initiative. My administration has focused on the value of collaboration, communication, and coordination in the review of management decisions involving the NPR–A. Management decisions involving the NPR–A can have a cultural and economic impact, while 

disproportionately effecting local populations. We hope that any 

proposed legislation that impacts the management of the NPR–A 

will include language, and acknowledges the importance of this 

type of collaboration. 

27

1The Borough recommended implementation of Alternative A, but with the southern region 

of NPR–A also opened for oil and gas leasing. Specifically, the Borough recommended that BLM 

apply the current package of stipulations and required operating procedures (ROPs) as presented in the 2008 Record of Decision for the former Northeast Planning Area, to the entire 

NPR–A. The Borough recommended that the area in the former Northwest Planning Area previously deferred from leasing until 2014 should be included in future lease sales upon expiration 

of the deferral. The Borough recommended that the area north and east of Teshekpuk Lake previously deferred from leasing until 2018 should be subject to an additional, targeted planning 

process before a decision was made to extend the deferral or open the area to leasing subject 

to appropriate protective measures. The Borough recommended that Special Areas should remain as previously defined. The Borough also recommended that no Wild and Scenic Rivers 

should be designated. 

Second, I would also like to comment on the BLM’s Fiscal Year 

2014 Budget. Under the President’s budget proposal for BLM, Alaska’s share of revenue from oil and gas activity in the NPR–A would 

be diverted from the State to the BLM to pay for the clean-up legacy wells drilled by the Federal Government between 1944 to 1981. 

I cannot emphasize enough how offensive this proposal is to the 

North Slope Borough. The majority of the NPR–A aid grant funding goes to four communities: Nuiqsut, Barrow, Atqasuk, and 

Wainwright. These same communities used impact aid funding for 

things such as recreational activities for youth and suicide prevention programs. 

Over 25 percent of our residents are unemployed, and nearly 50 

percent are under-employed. A loss of funds will severely impact 

programs funded by workforce and training development grants, 

adding to the unemployment problem. It is my hope that Congress 

will act to ensure that responsible resource development in the 

NPR–A is coupled with a firm mandate that the State and local 

communities continue to receive the impact aid funds that they 

rely upon. 

‘‘Quyanaqpak’’ for the opportunity to address you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Brower follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE E. BROWER, MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, ALASKA

H.R. 1964

Chairman Hastings, Congressman Young, members of the Committee:

I want to thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for your hearing on 

the Federal Government’s management of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 

(NPR–A) and, specifically, H.R. 1964, the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’, which would, among other things, nullify the NPR–A Integrated Activity 

Plan (IAP) Record of Decision (ROD) issued by the Secretary of the Interior on February 21, 2013, and amend the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 

to direct the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a program of competitive leasing 

of oil and gas in the NPR–A. 

As you may know, the North Slope Borough (Borough) participated in the development, by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), of the IAP and Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS) for the NPR–A. The Borough did not support several of the 

management decisions embodied in Alternative B–2, the preferred alternative in the 

final EIS. Alternative B–2 served as the basis for the ROD adopted by BLM for the 

management of the NPR–A.1 The Borough does, however, maintain a good relationship with BLM’s Alaska office. We appreciate BLM’s efforts to ensure that the Borough and our communities have a seat at the table when it comes to managing 

NPR–A lands, and in particular, we support the recent efforts of the BLM to establish the NPR–A Working Group to better involve North Slope communities in NPR–

A management decisions. 

The NPR–A IAP governs the management of the entire 22.6 million-acre NPR–

A, focusing on the potential effects of oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development within the area. The entire NPR–A lies within the boundaries of the North 

Slope Borough, a home rule regional municipal charter government operating under 

28

the laws of the State of Alaska. The majority of Borough residents are In ̃upiat Eskimos that live a subsistence lifestyle and are dependent upon the wild resources of 

our traditional lands and waters for our physical health and our cultural and spiritual well being. 

All of the NPR–A has been used by the In ̃upiat people for centuries, and continues to be of great importance to the well-being of our residents today. It contains 

habitat unique on the North Slope, and sees exceptional seasonal concentrations of 

wildlife resources. The region contains important nesting and staging areas for waterfowl, shorebirds, and raptors, overwintering and spawning areas for fish, and 

calving and insect-relief habitat for caribou. Many of these resource populations, including vast numbers of waterfowl and the Teshekpuk Lake, Central Arctic, and 

Western Arctic Caribou Herds migrate to, through, and from the NPR–A following 

relatively predictable patterns. In terms of the numbers of caribou harvested for 

subsistence, the Teshekpuk Lake Herd is today the most important herd on the 

North Slope. Scores of traditional subsistence cabins, campsites, transportation 

routes, and key harvest areas can be found throughout the region. Many significant 

In ̃upiat cultural and historic sites dot the landscape. 

While always mindful of the critical need to protect the environment and preserve 

subsistence opportunities, the North Slope Borough and our residents also recognize 

that our ability to continue to provide even the most basic services to our communities depends largely upon a revenue stream generated by taxes on oil and gas facilities located on land and in waters of the State of Alaska. 

The potential for oil and gas leasing, exploration, and development in the NPR–

A therefore presents difficult questions of priorities and policy for all North Slope 

organizations. Our challenge has always been to find a balance between the need 

for industry-fueled revenue and preservation of a healthy North Slope environment, 

healthy subsistence resource populations, and vibrant traditional subsistence culture of our people. 

Throughout the past 40 years, we have vigorously exercised our authority and influence to see industrial operations sited and conducted to the greatest extent possible in an environmentally and culturally sensitive manner. We have not always 

been successful in halting or conditioning operations to fully avoid or minimize adverse impacts. Cumulative impacts have occurred, and are only now being acknowledged by industry and the responsible Federal and State agencies. For the most 

part, however, and to some extent because of the Borough’s insistence on appropriate conditions, onshore oil and gas operations have been designed and operated 

without significant long-term effects on the environment, wildlife populations, or the 

In ̃upiat subsistence culture. 

H.R. 1964, the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Hastings and Congressman Young for taking a hard look at the energy needs of our Nation and for addressing the importance of a well-balanced approach to the management of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. In particular, I think it is important for Congress 

to reaffirm that the purpose of the NPR–A is to provide oil and gas resources to 

the United States and to take steps to ensure that the Reserve is managed in a way 

that allows for responsible natural resource development. 

The IAP released by the Department of the Interior prohibits oil and gas leasing 

in well over 50 percent of the NPR–A. This includes areas identified by BLM’s own 

estimates as having a high potential for oil and gas resources. While we are appreciative of Interior’s intent to protect and preserve wildlife resources and the habitats 

they depend on, we also feel that it is equally important for the NPR–A to be managed in a way that promotes responsible oil and gas development and economic opportunities for local communities. 

We also support efforts to conduct updated resource assessments within the NPR–

A to understand the resources that are available. This kind of information is critical 

to making effective and informed decisions over NPR–A management. 

NPR–A Working Group

While this hearing focuses on the Federal Government’s management of the NPR–

A and, specifically, H.R. 1964, the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’, 

I would be remiss not to comment on a few additional policy matters that are fundamentally related. 

First, along with Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the In ̃upiat Community 

of the Arctic Slope—for which there are representatives here today—we commend 

BLM for establishing the new NPR–A Working Group. And we are pleased that the 

BLM has obtained funding for this important initiative. 

29

My administration has focused on the value of collaboration, communication, and 

coordination in the review of management decisions involving the NPR–A. Management decisions involving the NPR–A can have cultural and economic impacts which 

disproportionately affect local populations. The effects of climate change on the Arctic environment are rapidly changing known plant and animal distributions, habitats, and ranges as well as the physical landscape and subsistence hunting practices 

and areas. 

Because of these impacts, infrequent commenting opportunities through the National Environmental Policy Act process, and other public processes, may not provide the most effective mechanism for local entities to provide meaningful input on 

NPR–A management decisions. We hope the NPR–A Working Group will strengthen 

coordination and cooperation between BLM, the Borough, and North Slope entities 

on NPR–A management issues. And we further hope that any proposed legislation 

that impacts the management of the NPR–A will include language that acknowledges the importance of this type of collaboration. 

Legacy Wells

I also want to address the BLM’s duty to fulfill its mission of protecting public 

land by plugging and remediating more than a hundred oil wells in northern Alaska. 

These wells, known as the ‘‘Legacy Wells,’’ were drilled between 1944 and 1982 

by the Federal Government in an attempt to locate commercial quantities of oil and 

natural gas. The U.S. Navy and U.S. Geological Survey drilled 136 wells in Northern Alaska over the span of five decades, which are now abandoned. Only a handful 

of the 136 wells have been plugged and cleaned up by State of Alaska standards. 

This issue is of concern to the entire State. 

The Federal Government wishes to act as steward of the land in Alaska, often 

telling our people what they can or cannot do on the land. Yet here is an example 

of the same government failing to fulfill the most basic of responsibilities as a land 

owner. Residents of the North Slope want to develop resources, but we want to do 

so responsibly. 

The State of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) has commented that all of BLM’s legacy wells are or have been out of compliance with multiple Alaska regulations. If these wells were operated by an oil company, the 

AOGCC would force compliance with its regulations and impose fines for any noncompliance. 

BLM’s FY 2014 Budget

Under the President’s FY 2014 budget proposal for BLM, Alaska’s 50-percent 

share of revenue from oil and natural gas activity in the NPR–A would be diverted 

from the State to the BLM to pay for the cleanup of legacy wells drilled by the Federal Government between 1944 to 1981 and to complete land conveyances owed to 

the State and to Alaska Natives. I cannot emphasize enough how offensive this proposal is to the North Slope Borough. 

The majority of NPR–A Impact Aid grant funding goes to four communities located within the NPR–A—Barrow, Nuiqsut, Wainwright and Atqasuk—which rely 

heavily on Local Government Operation grants to sustain their city governments. 

The four Local Government Operational grants total approximately $3.1 million annually, subject to NPR–A Impact Aid funding. These projects support operations and 

maintenance costs necessary to operate the local governments. 

BLM’s proposal to divert NPR–A revenues owed to the State will result in the 

elimination of NPR–A Impact Aid payments to the four NPR–A villages that depend 

on NPR–A revenues to operate. In 2010, the North Slope Borough completed a comprehensive Economic Profile and Census project in our region. The results indicated 

that 26.5 percent of our residents are unemployed and 49.4 percent are underemployed. If NPR–A revenue sharing payments cease, our villages and our already 

economically vulnerable residents will be harmed. 

BLM has expended $86 million to address 18 legacy wells ($4.77 million per well). 

Current NPR–A Impact Fund deposits are less than $4 million per year, and there 

are more than 110 additional wells to address—that means the ‘‘temporary’’ halt in 

revenue sharing payments proposed by BLM would end in about 150 years if all revenues are diverted to the Legacy Well cleanup program and no funding is committed 

to State and Native land conveyances. 

We cannot understand why BLM would choose to deprive our villages and our 

residents of Impact Aid grant funds, which are specifically authorized by Congress 

to address the impacts of oil and gas development in the region. Moreover, NPR–

A revenues cannot realistically support either the Legacy Well cleanup program or 

30

the Alaska Land Conveyance program, as proposed in BLM’s budget. We hope BLM 

will find another way to fulfill its Federal commitments to Alaska and to our people. 

Quyanaqpak (Thank you very much) for the opportunity to address you today. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you all for your testimony. I am going to 

now recognize myself for the first questions. Members are limited 

to 5 minutes for questions. We may have additional rounds. 

Mayor Brower, that is amazing. I did not know, until you explained it so clearly, that BLM wants to divert the money from the 

people of the communities there. I have no doubt that BLM has a 

worthwhile objective for that money, but they have many other 

ways that they can access funds. They can come to Congress and 

submit it in their budget. Is this unprecedented? 

Ms. BROWER. Mr. Chairman, it is. I have worked for North Slope 

Borough for over 40 years, and I have also worked in various organizations that rely on the NPR Impact Aid Fund. And we work 

closely with the four communities that are within the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. And those communities depend heavily on 

the impact aid that they receive through the State from the Federal Government on the NPR–A. 

And you have to understand. In order to receive funding, there 

has to be some activities within the NPR–A. And whatever activities that there are results in revenues that we get a share, through 

the State. And so, when we understood that the BLM decided that 

they would divert any funding that is given to the State and funneled to the North Slope Borough would be used to clean the legacy 

oil wells that had been there by the Department of Navy at the 

time they had done the NPR–A from between 1944 to 1981, and 

when they released that, BLM took over, of course they have left 

some legacy wells that are not within the standards that they 

should have. 

And so, when the North Slope Borough and State of Alaska says, 

‘‘We want that clean-up because it is environmentally safe for our 

residents so that they can hunt on the same grounds,’’ then when 

we found out that they were going to take our money away, this 

presents a position for the North Slope Borough to be strong on. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. And I don’t doubt that it is a worthy objective, but they have other ways they can get those funds. 

Commissioner Sullivan, in your testimony you point out that 

while the BLM claims nothing in their plan and Environmental 

Impact Statement is intended to bar the construction of pipelines, 

yet that is exactly what would happen. Can you specifically elaborate on why that is the case? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, sure. And just on the other question you had, the State of Alaska fully supports the North Slope 

Borough on its position on the NPR–A and the funding and the legacy well issue. As a matter of fact, we wrote a joint letter to the 

Department of the Interior on that issue. 

That had been a very big concern in all the different iterations 

of the proposal on the NPR–A. And although they did try to address it in the final record of decision, we still think that it has significant uncertainty, in terms of where the route would allow a 

pipeline. And that is absolutely critical, because almost any pipeline that goes from NPR–A or, importantly, if Shell’s 

31

Outercontinental Shelf development brings in oil, significant oil, 

and that comes down and through the NPR–A, any of that oil is 

going to have to go into the Trans-Alaska Pipeline system. And to 

have uncertainty on where a pipeline across the NPR–A area can 

go, just brings investment risk and uncertainty to increasing oil 

production from NPR–A or the OCS into——

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you. Commissioner Connell, why is 

BLM allowing this uncertainty, when there needs to be certainty 

for investments? We are talking about major investments, given 

the important environmental safeguards that have to be complied 

with in pretty adverse conditions. 

Ms. CONNELL. Yes, sir. The record of decision for the most recent 

BLM announcement on the NPR–A development scenario would include a requirement for a pipeline that would run from the 

Chukchi Sea down to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline. The site-specific 

analysis of exactly where that pipeline would go, we didn’t have 

enough detailed information about every mile of that proposed line 

to be able to make a site-specific decision, but there is absolutely 

commitment to provide for a pipeline. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, I am really glad to hear that, because that 

maybe will alleviate some of the uncertainty. Some people might be 

skeptical and say, well, this is a ploy to sort of draw things out and 

stonewall and delay and prevent. You are saying that is not the 

case. 

Ms. CONNELL. That is not the case. There is a commitment for 

a pipeline to go from the Chukchi Sea down to the Trans-Alaskan 

Pipeline. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you very much. I appreciate hearing 

that on the record. 

Representative Holt? 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. Connell, can you help explain or clarify the diversion of funds that Mayor Brower was talking about? I am not quite sure that I understand. 

Ms. CONNELL. Yes, sir. I will do my best. As you know, I am visiting from the State of Montana, where I am the State Director for 

BLM Montana, North and South Dakota. So I appreciate your invitation to be here. 

My understanding of that situation is that in the President’s 

budget for 2014 they were looking for a number of different ways 

to fund the vast array of BLM’s responsibilities. One of these responsibilities is, in fact, the clean-up of those legacy wells, wells 

that have not been plugged and abandoned appropriately in Alaska. 

This year for the Bureau of Land Management I can speak to 

specifically, our budget is $90 million less than it was last year. My 

organization, Montana, North and South Dakota, is less than that. 

It is less than an entire State organization. So $90 million is significant cuts to our Bureau’s budget. And so we are really trying 

to be creative. 

I 100 percent appreciate the concerns of my colleagues here from 

Alaska, and we have been working diligently with the State, and 

would be more than happy to work with this Committee to come 

up with different ideas and different funding strategies for that 

plug-in abandonment. It can be extremely expensive and time-conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
32

suming to take care of that situation, but we really would like to 

see the clean-up completed. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. Isn’t this at least partly due to the sequester and 

the budget cuts that we have seen? 

Ms. CONNELL. Yes, sir. It certainly is a funding discussion. We 

really need to find a place to pay for those plug-in abandonments 

of those wells. 

Dr. HOLT. Thanks. Ms. Connell, continuing, according to the 

BLM, the percentage of land parcels protested has declined in each 

of the last 4 years, following the leasing reforms by the Department. In 2009 I understand 47 percent of the lease parcels were 

protested. In 2012, protests were down to fewer than 18 percent of 

the 2,064 parcels offered for sale. 

You state in your testimony that, ‘‘It could be counterproductive 

to develop energy resources on Federal lands, if the result is greater near-term resource damage that, in turn, would necessitate 

more onerous restrictions on future energy development activities.’’ 

So, in other words, rather than planning smartly from the beginning, as the Department is trying to do, H.R. 1965 might actually 

mean that we would be forced to require more long-term restrictions on development. And it could actually reduce the certainty 

that the sponsors of this legislation say they are seeking. Am I correct on that? 

Ms. CONNELL. You have quoted our testimony accurately, yes, 

sir. Certainly, the Bureau’s determination to provide for energy development on public lands and in an environmentally responsible 

and balanced way is one of the highest and most important priorities for our Bureau. 

And we have seen a decrease in the number of protests. And I 

personally think that is because a plan may actually consider 

whether or not lands are suitable for oil and gas leasing on somewhere in the neighborhood of 7 to 10 million acres, which is a large 

landscape to look at anything in a very specific way. When we do 

our site-specific NEPA analysis or environmental analysis, when 

the lease parcels come in, we take a much closer look at each individual parcel. And I think that has provided for better decisions, 

more defensible decisions, and our ability, even if there are protests, our ability to defend our decisions in that case. 

Dr. HOLT. And, as I understand it, H.R. 1965 would really undermine the progress you are making in this—well, yes or no, would 

you agree? 

Ms. CONNELL. It is my understanding, the way that it is written, 

that it would provide a problem for us to continue with the locallevel review of lease parcels. 

Dr. HOLT. Just in the few seconds remaining, I wanted to ask if 

the Department has looked at this proposal of a $5,000 protest fee 

for anybody who wants to challenge a lease or a permit. Putting 

aside the constitutional free speech questions for another time, let 

me ask you, have you looked at it as a Department? Do you think 

this would reduce the number of protests, which are already at a 

smaller number than in the past? 

Ms. CONNELL. I don’t know that we looked at it as to whether 

or not it would reduce them. Although the concern that was listed 

in our testimony referenced to the fact that, as a Federal agency, 

33

we know that we are not perfect, we know that once in a while we 

might make a mistake, and it seems as if it should be reasonable 

for there to be an opportunity for people to call us on those mistakes. 

Dr. HOLT. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Representative Benishek? 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Connell, you are 

not in charge of the Alaska area, from what I understand from 

your comments. You actually work in the Western Continental 

United States. 

Ms. CONNELL. I do. I am here as the Acting Deputy Director for 

the Bureau of Land Management. So for the past several months 

I have had responsibilities for all of the United States, including 

Alaska. But my permanent job is, along with Congressman 

Cramer, is back in Montana and North and South Dakota. 

Dr. BENISHEK. All right. Well, the question I have, brought up 

by Ms. Brower, mitigation of these wells, these wells were done 

producing in 1981. Is that right? I mean this is from the 1940s to 

the 1970s, these wells were in production for the Naval Reserve. 

Is that right, Ms. Brower? 

Ms. BROWER. That is correct. 

Dr. BENISHEK. So why are we doing the mitigation now? I mean 

hasn’t that been done in the 35 years already? What is the story 

there? 

Ms. CONNELL. BLM has been working, since it became the responsibility of our Bureau, and I am sorry, I don’t know the exact 

date of that, but when the lands were transferred to the BLM, we 

have been working toward clean-up and plug-in abandonment of 

these wells, but it has been a bit slow-going because of the cost and 

the complexity of the abandonment of the wells. 

Dr. BENISHEK. So, since 1981, I think, you have been responsible 

for that land. And yet only now, 30-some years later, are you deciding that we need to cutoff the funds to this area in order to do that, 

30 years later? I just don’t get the thinking there. 

Ms. CONNELL. Well, that is currently the proposal in the President’s budget, yes. 

Dr. BENISHEK. All right. OK, thank you. Mr. Sullivan, I have a 

question for you. Ms. Connell seems to state in her opening statement that there was leasing going on up there in Alaska all the 

time, and that they are committed to doing leasing. And yet it 

seems like the wells aren’t getting done. What is the discrepancy 

there? I mean I don’t understand. Can you explain that to me? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure, Congressman. And just real quick on the 

legacy wells, I am sure this Committee has probably seen the pictures, but they are leaking all over the place, and there is oil all 

over the place. And if this were a private company that was ignoring this for 30 years, you would probably have executives in a fair 

amount of trouble. So the notion that all the sudden the State and 

the Borough have to pay for that, which is really the essence of the 

budget proposal, is why, Mayor Brower mentioned why that is such 

an offensive issue to us. 

But with regard to the leasing, one of the things that we are 

most concerned about is in the integrated plan, how that essentially took half of the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, which, 

34

again, was set aside by this body for oil and gas security-related 

issues, and in the latest management plan took half of that off the 

table for leasing. 

So, in terms of future leasing, on a huge area of Federal land in 

Alaska, it has just been cut in half. 

Dr. BENISHEK. So that was a regulatory decision by the BLM, 

then? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Correct. And we think that it might bump up 

against Federal law with regard to what is required and how that, 

the NPR–A, is managed. The organic focus on the NPR–A, just 

think about the title, the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska, 

was focused on oil and gas security for the country. Half of that is 

now gone. 

Dr. BENISHEK. So, despite the fact that Congress mandated this 

use for a petroleum reserve, the BLM, by regulation, cutoff half of 

it. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. That is our view, yes. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Tell me more about these legacy wells that are 

streaming oil on the surface. This is the responsibility, then, of the 

BLM. And it has been going on for 30 years? Is that what you are 

saying? I guess I wasn’t familiar with that. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, this is the responsibility of the Federal Government. And we would be glad, we have many members of the 

State of Alaska Legislature would love to come testify, show you 

pictures. Because, again, a legacy well sounds a little innocuous. 

When you go look that they are spilling oil all over the tundra, it 

is not innocuous. And we believe it is the Federal Government’s responsibility to clean it up. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Well, it sounds like you are right. 

Ms. Connell, are you aware of that situation, there is oil coming 

out of the ground on the tundra there, in that legacy well? 

Ms. CONNELL. I am familiar with the situation, and it is why the 

Department and the Bureau are adamant that we need to figure 

out, working with our partners at the State, a way to move forward. And funding is definitely an issue, and if this is not an acceptable means of funding those, we need to look for another 

means of doing that. 

Dr. BENISHEK. Thank you, and I think I am out of time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. We are going to have a little interruption here. As is our practice, whenever the Chairman or Ranking Member of the Full Committee are present, they are invited to 

give an opening statement also. So at this time I would like to now 

recognize the Chairman of the Full Committee, Representative 

Hastings of Washington, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DOC HASTINGS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 

Mr. HASTINGS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 

courtesy in going out of turn, but there are several hearings that 

are going on on the Hill today. 

The Natural Resources Committee has frequently discussed the 

Congressional Research Service reports that have shown that all of 

the recent increase in U.S. oil and natural gas production has occurred on State and private lands, and not on Federal lands. The 

35

lack of production on Federal lands is not for a lack of resources. 

But, rather, the lack of production is because of Federal regulations 

that hinder and block development. And the four bills before us 

today that we are discussing will hopefully help to reverse that 

trend. 

Together, these bills will help us expand oil and natural gas and 

renewable energy production on public lands. They will streamline 

government red tape, break down bureaucratic hurdles, and put in 

place a clear plan for developing our own energy resources. Even 

more importantly, these bills will spur job creation and help 

strengthen our economy. 

This week the AAA reported that motorists can expect another 

spike in gas prices this Memorial Day weekend. Prices have 

jumped $.14 in the last month and the national average is now 

$3.65 a gallon. These high prices hurt families and small businesses and weigh down our economy. But Americans shouldn’t 

have to settle for and accept near $4 gasoline prices. Continuing to 

increase our domestic supply, as these bills would do, is the best 

way to respond to these spikes. 

While our country continues to face looming deficits, it’s important to remember that energy production is a revenue generator. 

Increasing American energy production is one of the best things we 

can do to ensure job creation and economic growth. 

And I want to take a moment to talk specifically on H.R. 1964, 

the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act, that I introduced with my colleague from Alaska, Don Young. Alaska is a tremendous energy asset to our Nation. But the Obama Administration appears determined, against the wishes of most Alaskans, to 

keep their energy resources off limits. 

The NPR–A was specifically designated in 1923 as a petroleum 

reserve. Its express purpose was to supply our country with American energy. That is why it is completely unacceptable that the 

Obama Administration this year finalized a plan to close over half 

of NPR–A to energy production. 

This bill, that I introduced with Mr. Young, would nullify that 

plan and require the Interior Department to produce a new plan 

for responsible development of these resources. This bill would require annual leases in the NPR–A and ensure that necessary 

roads, bridges, and pipelines needed to transport energy out of the 

NPR–A can be approved and completed in a timely, efficient manner. This is crucial to ensure that the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, or 

TAPS, remains full and operational. 

While the most recent focus has been on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and the House will consider a bill this afternoon to approve 

it, we cannot forget that TAPS is one of our most important pieces 

of energy infrastructure in the Nation. Reduced production in Alaska has left TAPS at less than half its capacity, threatening a shutdown that would cost jobs and significantly weaken our energy security. We can not allow that to happen, and developing our resources and NPR–A is vital to ensure that it doesn’t. 

President Obama cannot continue to talk about his support for 

all-of-the-above energy and then continue to pursue policies that 

actively block all types of energy production on our Federal lands. 

All-of-the-above energy needs to be more than just a politically popVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
36

ular sound byte. The majority of the provisions in these bills 

passed the House in the last Congress with bipartisan support, and 

it is time for Congress once again to move forward with these common-sense, job-creating energy plans. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for holding this hearing, and 

thank you for your consideration of my schedule. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hastings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DOC HASTINGS, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE

ON NATURAL RESOURCES

The Natural Resources Committee has frequently discussed the Congressional Research Service reports that have shown that all of the recent increase in U.S. oil 

and natural gas production has occurred on State and private lands—not Federal 

lands. The lack of production is not for the lack of resources, but rather the lack 

of production is because of Federal regulations that hinder and block development. 

The four bills before us today will help to reverse that trend. 

Together, these bills will help us expand oil, natural gas and renewable energy 

production on public lands. They will streamline government red tape, break down 

bureaucratic hurdles and put in place a clear plan for developing our own energy 

resources. Even more importantly, these bills will spur job creation and help grow 

and strengthen our economy. 

This week, AAA reported that motorists can expect another spike in gasoline 

prices this Memorial Day weekend. Prices have jumped 14 cents in the past month 

and the national average is now $3.65. These high prices hurt families and small 

businesses, and weigh down our economy. But Americans shouldn’t have to settle 

for and accept near $4 a gallon gasoline prices. Continuing to increase our domestic 

supply, as these bills do, is the best way to respond to volatile price spikes. 

And while our country continues to face looming deficits, it’s important to remember that energy production is a revenue generator. Increasing American energy production is one of the best things we can do to ensure job creation and economic 

growth. 

I want to take a moment to specifically touch on H.R. 1964, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act that I introduced with my colleague from Alaska 

Rep. Don Young. Alaska is a tremendous energy asset for our Nation. But the 

Obama Administration appears determined, against the wishes of most Alaskans, 

to keep their energy resources off-limits. 

The NPR–A was specifically designated in 1923 as a petroleum reserve. Its expressed purpose was to supply our country with American energy. That’s why it’s 

completely unacceptable that the Obama Administration this year finalized a plan 

to close over half of the NPR–A to energy production. This bill would nullify that 

plan and require the Interior Department to produce a new plan for responsibility 

developing these resources. 

This bill would require annual lease sales in the NPR–A and ensure that necessary roads, bridges and pipelines needed to transport energy resources out of the 

NPR–A can be approved and completed in a timely, efficient manner. This is crucial 

to ensure that the Trans Alaskan Pipeline System (TAPS) remains full and operational. 

While most of the recent focus has been on the Keystone XL pipeline, and the 

House will consider a bill this afternoon to approve it, we cannot forget that TAPS 

is one of the most important pieces of energy infrastructure in our Nation. Reduced 

production in Alaska has left TAPS at less than half of its capacity, threatening a 

shutdown that would cost jobs and significantly weaken our energy security. We 

cannot allow that happen and developing our resources in the NPR–A is vital to ensuring that it doesn’t. 

President Obama cannot continue to talk about his support for all-of-the-above energy and then continue to pursue policies that actively block all types of energy production on our Federal lands. ‘All-of-the-above energy’ needs to be more than just 

a politically popular sound bite. 

The majority of the provisions in these bills passed the House last Congress with 

bipartisan support. It’s time for Congress to once again move forward with these 

common sense, job-creating energy plans. 

Mr. LAMBORN. You are certainly welcome. We will now have 

questions from Representative Tipton. 

37

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to 

thank our panel for taking the time to be able to be here. I think 

I would like to be able to start first, if I may, with Ms. Connell. 

In your testimony you had stated that, under H.R. 1394, that the 

primary purpose of the bill is to be able to promote energy development, rather than thoughtful decisions based on multiple-use management through public-based process. Can you point to me in the 

bill where it says that? 

Ms. CONNELL. I would have to take a look through my notebook, 

sir, to point exactly to where that is. 

Mr. TIPTON. Yes, I would like you to be able to get back to us, 

actually, on that. Because I will be able to give you a head start 

on this. In Section 2(a) it requires the Secretary to ‘‘be able to promote energy development and national security in accordance with 

the BLM land management mission of promoting multiple use on 

Federal lands, as set forth under the FLPMA policy.’’ And I think 

that is worthy of note. 

This is a critical time for the United States. From Alaska to Colorado to New York to California, all across this land, we are seeing 

families right now that are struggling to be able to pay their bills, 

to be able to keep the lights on, young families, senior citizens on 

fixed incomes. 

And when we look at what is going on in the Middle East, and 

maybe this can just be a simple, yes-or-no sort of an answer, when 

we see what is going on in the Middle East, the challenges that we 

are facing being able to put Americans back to work, is it a responsible time for the United States of America to be able to put forward an all-of-the-above energy strategy, to be able to put Americans back to work, to be able to develop American energy resources, to be able to create American energy security on American 

soil? Ms. Connell? 

Ms. CONNELL. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. It is. Sir? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. Ms. Brower? 

Ms. BROWER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. That is the purpose of H.R. 1394. I would think, and 

I will challenge the BLM, the Administration, actually, to be able 

to point in the bill where we eliminate any of the environmental 

safeguards, any of the requirements under the FLPMA policy for 

that all-of-the-above strategy, in terms of developing that public 

use of that public land. 

It is time that we put the politics aside and we stand up for the 

American people and American energy resources and American 

jobs for a change, rather than playing political games, when we 

can, responsibly, and should, responsibly, develop these resources 

on American soil. 

If we put forward that all-of-the-above strategy to develop American energy certainty, and we aren’t removing those environmental 

requirements, maybe just yes and no, is that going to be a responsible way to be able to move forward? Ms. Connell? 

Ms. CONNELL. Do I have to say yes or no? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. TIPTON. It is pretty straightforward. 

38

Ms. CONNELL. Just a very quick add-on to that. I think that the 

BLM’s concern, we support many of the goals of this bill. The concern is that in writing one environmental impact statement that 

would cover a nationwide energy development scenario that would, 

in fact, then provide for site-specific development seems a bit problematic. We would like to see something that would also allow for 

the environmental analysis at the site-specific level. And also recognize that we can improve efficiencies, and we should be able to 

do that——

Mr. TIPTON. You do note in the bill, however, that we give a lot 

of latitude in there to be able to work with the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Agriculture, to be able to make those determinations. In fact, this bill specifically notes that we aren’t telling 

you when and where to develop these resources. We just do need 

to develop them. Isn’t that in the interest of our country? 

Ms. CONNELL. It is certainly in the interest of the country and 

a mission of the Bureau of Land Management to manage for multiple use, including oil and gas and other energy resources. 

Mr. TIPTON. And that all-of-the-above that is specifically enumerated in the bill. 

Ms. CONNELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you. Sir? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Congressman Tipton, just one thing from our experience in Alaska is certainly that you can responsibly develop the 

resources in an Arctic environment and protect the environment. 

And we think we have a very strong track record, the highest 

standards in the world, in terms of doing that. And that has been 

our goal, and we want to be able to do that on Federal land, as 

well. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Ms. Brower, you probably love where you 

live, you like to be able to have clean air, clean water, and like to 

be able to turn on the lights. Can we responsibly develop these resources? 

Ms. BROWER. Yes, sir, you can. 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Thank you. With that, Mr. Chairman, my 

time is about expired. I appreciate it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Representative Cramer. 

Mr. CRAMER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member 

Holt, and all of the witnesses. 

Ms. Connell, I just want to sort of explore a little bit more Mr. 

Holt’s discussion with you about the documentation fee in 

H.R. 1965. Would this be the only opportunity that the public 

would have to comment on the rules or on the process, on the 

NEPA process, is the only possibility for the public to comment 

would be with the $5,000 documentation fee? 

Ms. CONNELL. No, certainly the public can comment at any time 

during the environmental analysis. We have open comment periods, that is correct. 

Mr. CRAMER. So what would the $5,000 cover, then? Is that not 

the formal protest that does, in fact, cost BLM a great deal to defend? 

Ms. CONNELL. Protests can, in fact, be costly. It is not clear to 

me exactly what were the thoughts of the people drafting the bill 

as to what the $5,000 fee would be used to cover. 

39

Mr. CRAMER. Let me ask this, then, too, about the statistic regarding fewer protests and the decline in protests. Would it not 

stand to reason that since there are fewer leases, there would be 

fewer protests? Would that not be a common conclusion? 

Ms. CONNELL. I think if you counted them in numbers, that could 

be a problem. We have been evaluating that based on percentages. 

And a number of years ago we were receiving protests on more 

than 50 percent of our leases, and now it is down to somewhere 

around 18 percent. 

Mr. CRAMER. All right. With that, I have no further questions 

and I would yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Representative Ca ́ rdenas, do you wish to ask 

questions? 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Yes. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have a question. 

When it comes to the permitting that goes through your Department, do we have permits that have been approved as of late in 

the last year, two, three, four, five? Yes, please. 

Ms. CONNELL. And are you asking for across the United States, 

or in a specific location? 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Across the United States, just a general activity. 

Ms. CONNELL. We have. As far as drilling applications, the number of permits have averaged around 4,000 for the last number of 

years. And, in fact, we have permitted approximately 4,000 wells, 

on average, in recent years. And the number of wells drilled have 

been somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So there is, in fact, a process that is accessible and it is usable, correct? As far as permitting goes. 

Ms. CONNELL. That is correct. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. Thank you for the time, Mr. Chairman. I 

just wanted to clarify, because sometimes what happens, Americans read the press or what have you, and it seems it is a black 

or white issue, as though at one point in time the permit process 

was accessible and usable and permits were granted, and then all 

of a sudden, because some people say that perhaps the process is 

flawed, or we should make it better, or what have you, the press 

tends to report that there is complaints that it has come down to 

the point where people can’t do business, or people can’t access 

those resources. 

So, I just wanted to get that on the record, that it hasn’t, the situation right now is not that permits aren’t granted, or that activity 

is not occurring, it is just that in any situation, in my opinion, 

there is always room for improvement, and there is always room 

for an opportunity for us. When we say we want to be accessible, 

and that there be a process, that process be accessible as a process, 

and that there be a light at the end of the tunnel, where people 

can actually achieve and then actually obtain a permit. Thank you 

very much. I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And let’s have a second round of questions. I know some of you have come 5,000 miles and the other witness came 5 miles. But it is great that you are all here, so let’s take 

advantage of this opportunity, and then we will go on to the second 

panel. 

40

Commissioner Sullivan, you say that your State withdrew its 

participation in the planning process because of reputed refusals by 

the BLM to consider Alaska’s concerns. Can you elaborate on how 

or why they did not fully allow Alaska to take your concerns into 

consideration? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure, Mr. Chairman. We had been a cooperating 

agency in the review process, and that is actually a legal term that 

enables you to supposedly have a significant influence on the decision. And our concerns throughout the process, and they are very 

voluminous, we can certainly submit them for the record, whether 

it is letters from the Governor, myself, many other State of Alaska 

officials, were, we viewed, not taken into account at all. And we, 

in many ways, are kind of the ultimate stakeholder up there on 

this issue, because it is so important to the State of Alaska. And 

even the number of meetings we had with BLM during the initial 

process, as this process was going forward, was limited to, like, one 

or two. 

So, we saw that the cooperating agency role that we were supposed to play was very, very limited. And the reason the Governor 

wrote a letter to Secretary Salazar withdrawing our participation 

is because, being a cooperating agency, you also have a bit of an 

imprint on the final decision. And we, saying, yes, were cooperating 

many times, we are good to go with that decision, and we were not 

good to go with that decision at all. It was certainly not the alternative of the many alternatives that were laid out. I think many 

other entities, the North Slope Borough, ASRC, who is going to testify later, had similar views. 

So that has been one of the themes, where we comment a lot, 

and we seem to get very, very little feedback or indication that our 

views are taken into account. And it is an important issue, because 

we don’t consider ourselves just another stakeholder in the process. 

We are the other sovereign in the process. We are the other constitutionally-endowed entity involved in helping make this decision. 

So it has been frustrating. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Did any other statewide official in 

Alaska support the BLM plan? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. From the State of Alaska? 

Mr. LAMBORN. That you are aware of. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. And specifically, Commissioner, 

what is it, is it the fact that 50 percent of the NPR–A is taken off 

the table? Is that what Alaskans considered a poor decision on the 

part of BLM? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. That is the primary issue here. And they 

have been saying that, ‘‘Well, we took 50 percent off the table, but 

the vast majority of the known resources in NPR–A were left on 

the table.’’ We think that is an argument that is very flimsy. The 

latest proposal, the latest USGS estimates of what is in NPR–A, 

we think, had significant flaws. And, to be honest, it is an area 

that has enormous potential that hasn’t really been looked at that 

much. So——

Mr. LAMBORN. And that is why you want to do the seismic 

project. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, that is actually in the 1002 Area for ANWR. 

41

Mr. LAMBORN. Oh, that is right, that is 1002. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. But we think that the latest assessment 

that USGS did, and we worked very closely, my agency in particular, very closely with USGS, we have a great relationship with 

them. But we went to them after their latest assessment which 

dropped the oil potential in NPR–A by 90 percent, 90 percent, and 

we went back to them and said, ‘‘Really, 90 percent, how did you 

get to that?’’

And so we had significant issues with the latest resource assessment, as well, which was part of the reason they claimed that they 

could cut the available leasing in half and not affect the resources 

available to the country. We think that is a conclusion that is, as 

I mentioned, on very thin ice. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Supported by scientific evidence, or not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We think it is supported by an assessment, the 

latest assessment, that has significant problems with it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. And, Mayor Brower, besides the 

diversion of funding that you talked about earlier to several of us, 

what other objections do you have to the BLM plan? 

Ms. BROWER. The concern that the North Slope Borough has is 

the decision, record of decision, that was made on the area that we 

felt would be better served for a use of leasing and not be made 

into a wilderness area, same as has been done to the ANWR. 

I would like to also state for the record that the National Petroleum Reserve Act that had been created in 1926 and in 1940s the 

Department of Navy went and put all the stakes of where the National Petroleum—and in earlier years it was called PET4. My father-in-law, Harry K. Brower, Sr., was the man who helped a geologist from the Department of Navy and staked out all the National 

Petroleum Act. And if he were alive today, he would say, ‘‘What did 

I do to my people?’’ Because it is very disheartening when our people have to listen to our Federal Government, our State of Alaska, 

and then when we created our own borough, that—‘‘What did I do,’’ 

is what he would say. 

Anyway, he is a very true environmentalist. He wants to see his 

country, his area that he hunted and trapped for many years to be 

pristine. But he knows he had to feed his 9 children, the same as 

the way that I am with my 6 children and my 23 grandchildren. 

We are all living in that area. So we live and breathe it. So, yes, 

we support development, as long as it is responsible development. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. 

Ms. BROWER. And we concur with the State of Alaska. However, 

we remain as a cooperating agency to BLM. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Thank you very much. Representative Holt? 

Dr. HOLT. Again, thank you, Mayor Brower, for coming all this 

distance to advocate for your citizens. 

Let me turn to you, Mr. Sullivan. And I want to make sure that 

I am clear and that everyone is clear on the NPR–A management 

plan. You keep referring to the management plan applying to only 

half the area. But it applies, does it not, to nearly three-quarters 

of the resources that are to be made available for development. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So, Congressman Holt, with all due respect, that 

was the point I was making earlier, that has been the number that 

the Department of the Interior laid out. And we——

42

Dr. HOLT. Yes. That is the plan. That is what I am asking. The 

plan says three-quarters, actually 72 percent. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right. So that is their——

Dr. HOLT. The resources would be available for development. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, but we disagree with that. We think that is 

a premature estimate based on the latest USGS estimates and 

again, we have highlighted this. And I do want to emphasize we 

have the utmost respect for USGS. We work super cooperatively 

with them across the board, probably the best State-Federal relationship on resources in the country. 

Dr. HOLT. Well, I understand——

Mr. SULLIVAN. But we had very significant——

Dr. HOLT. So your estimates of the resources are different 

than——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, and to——

Dr. HOLT. OK. Well, but——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Get to 82 percent was very——

Dr. HOLT. But I think maybe——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Premature for the Federal Government to say that, very premature. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. There are not enough wells——

Dr. HOLT. OK, well, let me——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. There has been little 3D seismic 

shock there——

Dr. HOLT. If I may, please? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sure. 

Dr. HOLT. I think maybe a better measure, then, is—what are 

the oil exploration companies doing? And if you look after 2005, oil 

and gas companies relinquished more than 100 leases in the reserve. In 2010, 64 leases were released. Currently there are no 

pending applications to drill. I think this means they are voting 

with their feet. They are saying the resources, they are choosing 

not to go for these. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well——

Dr. HOLT. And doesn’t that have more to do with the fact that 

there is more gas and less oil? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So, I think voting with their feet is a big picture 

item that relates to regulatory uncertainty. One of the biggest 

issues we had to deal with, with——

Dr. HOLT. Yes, they are saying the uncertainty of how much 

money they will get for the gas, and how they would transport or 

pipe the gas out of there. That is the concern——

Mr. SULLIVAN. It is the uncertainty of——

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. That there is not much—I mean they are 

not going for the oil. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Right now, ConocoPhillips is looking to do a development in the NPR–A that——

Dr. HOLT. Have they applied for a lease? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Oh, they are going to drill it. The big problem 

with that, they have drilled it. The big problem with that was Fish 

and Wildlife and the EPA vetoed a Corps of Engineers’ permit to 

build a bridge over the Colville River to actually access the oil out 

43

of NPR–A. And that is the kind of regulatory uncertainty that has 

been hurting development——

Dr. HOLT. That is on the basis of an issued permit, isn’t it? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, that was going to be issued by the Corps of 

Engineers. All of us, the borough, everybody in the State of Alaska——

Dr. HOLT. That permit has been issued, has it not? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. We worked for 5 years on that, together——

Dr. HOLT. Has that permit been issued? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was denied. And for 2 years we all fought it together——

Dr. HOLT. So that permit has not been issued? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. They finally reversed themselves. But after——

Dr. HOLT. That is my point. That permit has been issued. Thank 

you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. A long time it took, and a lot of uncertainty. 

Dr. HOLT. OK. If you could answer a little more succinctly, because the time is limited. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sorry. 

Dr. HOLT. If we are looking at H.R. 1394, often here in this Committee, the Majority talks about how the environment is different 

in different parts of the country, whether you are talking about 

fracking or other mining or extraction. And yet we have a bill, 

H.R. 1394, that for oil and gas and for strategic minerals, and even 

for coal, would have one environmental review for all production 

across the entire United States, and that review must be completed 

in 1 year. 

Let me ask the three panelists. Do you think this gives good local 

specificity? 

Ms. BROWER. For the North Slope Borough? No. 

Dr. HOLT. No? Mr. Sullivan——

Ms. BROWER. One year is not sufficient. 

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. In a very few seconds, please. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So certainly the State would like to be involved 

in any kind of environmental reviews with regard to resources——

Dr. HOLT. OK. So something handed down from Washington 

probably would not be local——

Mr. SULLIVAN. We would want input on that. 

Ms. CONNELL. This was actually the area of our core concern for 

this bill. 

Dr. HOLT. OK, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. You are welcome. Representative Tipton. 

Mr. TIPTON. Mr. Chairman, I will yield my time to you. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Commissioner Sullivan, your plan 

for seismic exploration—that is, the State of Alaska’s plan that you 

were describing earlier concerning ANWR? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Is contingent upon cooperation by the Federal 

Government. What is it that you would like from Congress or the 

Federal Government? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, Mr. Chairman, right now we are going 

through a similar process that we went through on NPR–A with an 

ANWR comprehensive management plan. And the State and many 

other agencies have been very focused on trying to get an alterVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
44

native in that plan that would enable the 1002 Area, that was the 

area set aside by Congress in the Federal act, to assess the oil and 

gas resource potential. It has been done previously by the Federal 

Government, it hasn’t been done in 30 years. 

We think that you can do it in an environmentally responsible 

way, ice roads, ice pads, the highest standards, with 3D seismic, 

limited exploration drilling, very limited impact on the environment. And then you, the Congress, the American people, would actually know what the resource is in the 1002 Area. It has been estimated to be above 11 billion barrels of oil. 

And so, we think it is so important that we have put forward a 

very specific scientific plan, and the Governor has said that the 

State will fund it up to $50 million, which would be about a third 

of the 3D seismic program. So we think it is very modest, hopefully 

going to enable bipartisan support, simply exploration, not development. Just to answer the question, why wouldn’t you want to know 

what the resources are when BLM and Interior manage those 

lands, and Congress is focused on the 1002 Area as an important 

oil and gas province? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. Also on Representative Hastings’ bill, 

which is one of the four we are looking at today, it would direct 

the Administration to go back and get another option on the final 

management plan for the NPR–A. What was the State’s preferred 

option? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, I can get back to you on that, because it is A, B, C, and D, and I am not recalling exactly which 

one it is. But we can get back to you on that. But it was the one 

that we were focused on that had the most oil and gas leasing potential in NPR–A. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Director Connell, I want to ask 

you about an unrelated matter. Last week the Ocotillo Wind 

Project in California suffered a catastrophic accident when one of 

its 170-foot blades flew off. This is a few hundred yards from a 

busy highway. And hikers and others are in and about this immediate area. What has BLM done with regards to reviewing the 

cause of this failure, where the blade flew off? 

Ms. CONNELL. You are correct that we had an incident in California, where a wind turbine, a blade from a wind turbine, became 

detached. That was on May 16th, when it was reported to the 

BLM. The location has been shut down, the entire project, while 

the industry, as well as BLM and others, are looking to determine 

what has been the cause of that incident. All of the various towers 

and blades are being inspected. 

Mr. LAMBORN. In that project, or elsewhere? 

Ms. CONNELL. Well, at this point in time we are inspecting that 

project, but we are looking to learn from that to see if there could 

be implications elsewhere. 

Mr. LAMBORN. So if there is metal fatigue or something like that, 

and it seems possibly systemic, you will expand your investigation? 

Ms. CONNELL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. To other wind farms, would it be of towers made 

by that same manufacturer, or all wind towers? 

Ms. CONNELL. I wouldn’t want to speak to the mechanical engineer based on that, but I think we will take the information we 

45

learned from this and use it to inform decisions we are making 

elsewhere. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And does BLM contemplate putting additional 

safeguards in place to prevent, or at least mitigate the damage 

from this kind of catastrophic failure? 

Ms. CONNELL. If our investigations prove that to be the appropriate action, that is what we could do. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Now I would like to recognize 

Representative Ca ́ rdenas. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Thank you very much. I have a question regarding the either disagreement or the difference between the USGS estimates of 896 million barrels of oil versus the 10.6 billion barrels 

of oil estimated in 2002. That is a tremendous, tremendous, over 

tenfold disparity. What seems to be the difference, in your opinion, 

of those two estimates? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. So, Congressman, we agree that when that came 

out, that was a big shock to us, because there has been a number 

of estimates in NPR–A previously that were all in a similar ballpark, but pretty significant. Huge amounts of gas, natural gas, always. But also very significant amounts of oil. So when that number came out, it was kind of shocking because, as you mentioned, 

it was a 90 percent drop. 

So we had worked with and wrote letters, again, to the USGS. 

We have the utmost respect for that agency, but we thought it 

failed to consider and looked at a very limited number of exploration wells. So, as you can imagine, in an area that large, basing 

something so dramatically with regard to a downgrade——

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Well——

Mr. SULLIVAN [continuing]. Based on a few wells, we thought, 

was not a very scientific——

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Because time is limited——

Mr. SULLIVAN. Sorry. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS [continuing]. Could we get to this set of points, if 

you have them, and that it was, in your opinion, was it a technology difference? Was it a scope of the amount of testing and/or 

information gathering was maybe a 10-to-1 difference? I mean 

was——

Mr. SULLIVAN. It was principally, we thought it was based on 

very limited data, not enough seismic, not enough wells. And, for 

example, it didn’t even touch the issue of unconventional oil and 

gas, which we think in Alaska has enormous potential, the shale 

oil, shale gas. Didn’t even look at that. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. OK. So the 2002 estimate, what was the difference between the scope and/or the magnitude of that testing and 

that figure that resulted? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, I mean, that had been the basis of a number 

of previous work, including some of the work that industry had 

done. And even that, to be honest, did not really look hard at the 

unconventional potential in Alaska, which now everybody is starting to look at. 

And to give USGS credit, they are starting to go up and do a 

broad-based survey of Alaska unconventional oil and gas resources, 

which we think is going to show very significant amounts of additional prospects. 

46

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Now, in that span of 10 years, I mean I am an 

engineer myself, and looking at the last 30 years, the last 20 years, 

the last 10 years, and the last 2 years, in the hope of advances in 

technology over the next 6 months, shouldn’t tests or estimates 

that are given in 2012 potentially have a better opportunity for accuracy than what happens in 2002? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. You would think so, but we thought that it actually——

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Are both departments actually using the same 

technologies on these estimates? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. What we typically do, both departments, with regard to what the Department of Natural Resources has the ability 

to do and USGS, is look at seismic data, look at well data, discuss 

the prospects that have been drilled with industry. And we thought 

that, in this case, basing such a huge, dramatic drop on the oil side 

didn’t take into enough of that, that there wasn’t enough data to 

justify such a dramatic drop. That has been our basic issue, in addition, not even looking at the unconventional potential. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. So my last question, Mr. Chairman, is how do 

both of the departments determine how much resources/funds that 

they get to actually do that component of their job? 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Well, one of the things, it is a little bit off the 

topic, but one of the things that we are trying to do on the ANWR 

proposal that we put forward is advance the very issue that you 

are talking about, which is to actually shoot 3D seismic, only 2D 

seismic has been shot in the 1002 Area, and that was in the early 

eighties, so that is 30 years old. And because we know the Federal 

Government has limited funds, we said we would step up and put 

$50 million toward that program, which would be about a third of 

the cost to do that. 

And that is why we think it is reasonable, and we certainly hope 

the Federal Government takes us up on it, to have a really good, 

up-to-date, modern assessment of what is in the 1002 Area. And 

right now, unfortunately, we are getting a little bit of silence from 

the Department of the Interior on whether they want to partner 

with us on that. The Governor wrote Secretary Jewell a letter over 

the weekend that specifically said the Department of Geological 

Survey in Alaska has a great relationship with the USGS, it would 

be great if these two entities could work together with the $50 million to shoot a 3D seismic program, and it would address with 

much more certainty what we have in that important part of Federal lands. 

Mr. CA ́ RDENAS. Mr. Chairman, it would be great to see how both 

of the departments would address future exploration and/or estimates, and whether or not they have internal resources that they 

could shift and/or dedicate, or if they would have to come to us and 

ask us for those resources. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Absolutely. Thanks for raising that point. 

I want to thank the witnesses all for being here. I know you 

came a long way, and, at least in two of your three cases, and 

thank all of you for being here and providing the testimony and the 

answers to our questions. 

47

For the witnesses, Members may have additional questions. And 

if those are submitted to you in writing, we ask that you would respond to those, as well. Thank you. 

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would like to now have the second and last 

panel come forward. We have Mr. Richard Glenn, Executive Vice 

President of Lands and Natural Resources for the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation; Mr. Jack Ekstrom, Vice President of Corporate 

and Government Relations for Whiting Petroleum Corporation; Mr. 

William Britain, President and CEO of EnergyNet.com, Inc.; Ms. 

Debbie Miller, Founder and Member of the Board of Directors of 

the Alaska Wilderness League; and Mr. Jim Spehar, former Mayor 

of Grand Junction, Colorado, and whose son lives in my district 

and is a constituent. 

Like all our witnesses, your written testimony will appear in full 

in the hearing record, so I ask that you keep your oral statements 

to 5 minutes. Our microphones are not automatic, so you have to 

push the button to begin. The timing lights work in the following 

way. It is green when you start at 5 minutes. After 4 minutes, it 

turns yellow. And then after 5 minutes, when you need to stop, it 

turns red. 

Mr. Glenn, you may begin. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, LANDS AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC SLOPE 

REGIONAL CORPORATION 

Mr. GLENN. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Lamborn and 

Committee members. My name is Richard Glenn. And, like Mayor 

Brower, I am a resident of Alaska, Alaska’s North Slope. We live 

inside the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. I am the Vice 

President of Lands for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. And we 

depend on this environment, both for the resources it provides the 

country in terms of oil and gas, and for what we call the subsistence resources, the food and the cultural ties that have sustained 

us for centuries. 

Mr. Chairman, in our region the proportion of land owned by the 

Federal Government is remarkable. We think it exists nowhere else 

in the country. We are talking about 23 million acres of NPR–A 

lands, 19 million acres of lands in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 7 million acres in the Gates of the Arctic National Park. These 

are huge swaths of Federal lands managed by Congress and the 

Federal agencies. 

Within this area is the National Petroleum Reserve. It is the center of our region. It is our home, and it contains four of our communities. It is also a petroleum reserve, though. It holds the potential 

of oil and gas resources of national interest. And safe and responsible oil and gas development is the only industry in our region 

that has been around long enough to foster improvements to the 

quality of life in our communities. There is no agriculture, no fishing, no timber. There is only the oil and gas industry in our region. 

Arctic Slope Regional Corporation and the people of the North 

Slope have a heightened concern for the environmental effects of oil 

and gas exploration and development, because we live there. Regarding risks related to this industry, no one has more at stake 

48

than we do. It is for these reasons that we support H.R. 1964, specifically Sections 4 and 5. We appreciate the Committee’s efforts to 

require the Department of the Interior to go back to the drawing 

board with respect to the recently finalized integrated activity plan 

for NPR–A. 

We met with Interior representatives only after they formed a 

record of decision. If you ask me, I would say there was insufficient 

meaningful consultation with the native land owners or the municipalities within NPR–A. 

The current NPR–A plan is ambiguous with respect to rights of 

way also for pipelines. When a preferred and alternate route for 

pipelines are identified, our communities will want to be at the 

table to discuss all of the options. Further, we believe that the subsistence resources, the animals, the fish, the water fowl, the caribou, they don’t recognize lines on a map. They migrate in and out 

of the region in huge annual migrations. And no special habitat 

protection is going to protect these resources. 

Instead, what is going to happen is that the protection of these 

resources exists by the sheer size of the petroleum reserve, itself. 

Most of the reserve will remain untouched because of its huge size 

and the widely spaced nature of the oil and gas resources. So it is 

for these reasons that we should allow development to occur in the 

few places where it exists, especially if it is shown not to have an 

impact on wildlife species. So, we have opposed any designations 

that would erect additional barriers to responsible oil and gas development. 

In our region, millions of acres are locked up as wilderness, national parks, and similarly other restrictive status for other lands. 

More of these efforts threaten to paint us into a corner within our 

own region. 

On Monday, the State of Alaska proposed the wintertime exploration of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We support the 

State’s proposal. This exploration of the coastal plain done in wintertime has no lasting, permanent effects on the land. It is safe, 

and it occurs over snow cover. Evaluation of the coastal plain will 

give Congress and the American people enough information then to 

make reasonable decisions about the public lands and the wildlife 

refuge. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input in this process. 

And as Congress goes forward to debate this issue, I ask that you 

remember the impacts that your decisions will have on our communities, our culture, and our people. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Glenn follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD K. GLENN, EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT, LANDS

AND NATURAL RESOURCES, ARCTIC SLOPE REGIONAL CORPORATION

Chairman Hastings, Ranking Member Markey, and distinguished members of the 

Subcommittee, thank you for allowing me this opportunity to provide comments 

today. My name is Richard Glenn and I am the Executive Vice President of Lands 

and Natural Resources for Arctic Slope Regional Corporation. I live in Barrow, Alaska. My professional background is in geology and Arctic geologic processes. Like 

most of my fellow community members, I also depend on the land and sea for what 

we call subsistence resources, the food and cultural web that has sustained us for 

centuries. 

49

The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation is one of the 12 land-based Native regional 

corporations created by Congress pursuant to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement 

Act of 1971. 

ASRC owns approximately 5 million acres of land, and represents the interests 

of approximately 11,000 In ̃upiat Eskimo shareholders, that mostly reside in 8 communities within Alaska’s North Slope. The mandate prescribed by law to ASRC requires ASRC to return benefits back to our people. The only asset transferred to 

ASRC through this act was land entitlement. We continue to explore options on how 

to use this asset to return those benefits back to our people. ASRC lands are impacted by the Federal management decisions in NPR–A. As one of the largest private landowners within the NPR–A, its decisions affect our corporation and our people. 

The North Slope and State of Alaska economies are dependent upon finding and 

developing new oil and gas resources. Communities within NPR–A are even more 

dependent. They are at the tip of the spear on the effects of management decisions 

on public lands in Alaska. 

Our villages are small and separated by great distance in an area about the size 

of the State of Montana. No roads connect our villages. My hometown of Barrow 

is a coastal community located inside NPR–A, 340 miles north of the Arctic Circle, 

near the boundaries of both the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. 

The proportion of Federal land owned by the Federal Government in one region 

is remarkable. It does not exist anywhere else in the United States. NPR–A, 23 million acres, ANWR, 19 million acres, and the Gates of the Arctic National Park, 7 

million acres—these are huge swaths of land controlled by decisions made in Congress and Federal agencies such as the Department of the Interior. The National 

Petroleum Reserve in Alaska is the center of our home. Larger than some Eastern 

Seaboard States, the NPR–A has no roads and only four of our In ̃upiat communities. 

The region hosts huge populations of migratory animals. Caribou, fish, waterfowl 

and others; they do not recognize lines on a map, but move in and out of the area 

in sweeping migrations. 

The NPR–A is also a petroleum reserve; it holds the potential of oil and gas resources of national interest. Within its boundaries are also the corridors for the development of important resources in Alaska’s outer continental shelf. 

Committee members, in just my lifetime, our communities have gone through 

great change, with developments that have improved the quality of life from formerly very harsh conditions. Today, our ‘‘villages’’ are actually small cities with 

small city needs: reliable power, water and sewer treatment facilities, health services, fire protection, airports and schools. 

Our people depend on these services. We have not looked to many Federal or even 

State-funding sources to build our community improvements. They were developed 

thanks to our home-rule municipality, the North Slope Borough, and a locally-derived property tax base based on oil and gas exploration. There is essentially no 

other economy in our region. Safe and responsible oil and gas development is the 

only industry that has remained in our region long enough to foster village improvements that have improved our quality of life. There is no agriculture, no fishing, 

and only a modest tourist presence. In short, Alaska’s North Slope Native people, 

depend upon continued development to sustain their communities. So oil and gas 

development is important to us, perhaps even more than to our State and Nation. 

The volume of oil being produced in Alaska is in deep decline, producing today 

at less than one-third the rate of its peak production of 2 million barrels per day 

and continues to drop every year. This decline has caused us to question the future 

of the communities that we have worked so hard to improve. We have asked ourselves: where will our grandchildren go to school, what will power their villages, 

how will their communities be sustained? With prospective onshore areas now offlimits, we may be unable to offset it in the near term. This decline is not just a 

lingering tail of decreasing production, but can become a ‘‘brick wall’’ when the pipeline reaches its minimum throughput limits and is unable to move production. 

Hence, the need for significant new production. 

We understand that the currently-known onshore resources are not enough to 

stem the decline in production; they only reduce its severity. New exploration is 

needed. Oil, as they say, is where you find it. We have hydrocarbons-coal, natural 

gas and oil, and in some places we have them in abundance. Resource potential exists on both State- and federally-owned owned lands, as well as private lands owned 

by North Slope Alaska Natives, including prospects in the NPR–A. NPR–A and the 

Alaskan offshore represent the future; they will help fill the gap in throughput capacity in coming years. 

50

ASRC and the people of the North Slope have a heightened concern for the environmental effects of oil and gas exploration and development. We live there. Regarding environmental risks, no one has more at stake than we do. 

It is for these reasons that we support H.R. 1964. Specifically, Sections 4 and 5. 

We appreciate the Committee’s efforts to require the Department of the Interior 

to ‘‘go back to the drawing board’’ with respect to the recently finalized NPR–A Integrated Activity Plan. We met with Interior representatives only after they formed 

a Record of Decision for the NPR–A. If you ask me, I would say there was insufficient meaningful consultation with Native landowners or municipalities. 

The current NPR–A Integrated Activity Plan is ambiguous with respect to rightsof-way. Clarity and certainty is needed, and H.R. 1964, provides both. When preferred and alternate routes for pipelines are identified, our communities will need 

a seat at the table to discuss the options. We want to be part of the process that 

preserves the subsistence hunting and fishing rights of our people, while delivering 

domestic energy to our region and to the Nation. 

Further, we believe it is important to recognize that the subsistence resources do 

not recognize lines on a map. The areas of special habitat protection in general will 

do nothing to protect those resources. Caribou, waterfowl and fish move across the 

petroleum reserve and far beyond as part of their annual migration. I believe that 

much of the NPR–A affected by the recent Record of Decision will remain untouched, due to its large size and widely-spaced energy potential, not because of any 

special environmental protection. It is for these reasons that we allow development 

in the places where such potential exists, especially if it is shown to have little or 

no impacts on wildlife species. 

We were frustrated with the lack of meaningful consultation during the IAP/EIS 

process with tribal and other Native groups. The Record of Decision now includes 

a role for the North Slope Borough, as well as our village and regional corporations 

who are landowners within the petroleum reserve. That is a good thing, but the Interior Department should have incorporated local input before, and not after the 

Record of Decision. 

ASRC and the North Slope Borough have participated in all four of the NPR–A 

IAP/EIS processes since 1999. Through extensive consultation and collaboration 

with all of the stakeholders in NPR–A, prior administrations including those under 

Interior Secretaries Babbit Norton accepted and considered local input prior to forming their management decisions. The result was a more ‘‘balanced plan’’ to which 

all parties generally agreed. 

ASRC believes that responsible oil and gas development on the North Slope and 

offshore allows ASRC to meet its congressionally-mandated obligations to its Alaskan Native shareholders. We continue to believe that responsible resource development and appropriate management of resources, including subsistence resources, 

are not mutually exclusive goals. Responsible development also provides a safe and 

secure source of energy to the Nation, creates important jobs, and helps ensure future flow through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System. Public law states the NPR–

A is to be managed ‘‘in a manner consistent with the total energy needs of the Nation.’’ The discovery and development of oil and gas resources in the Arctic, including in the NPR–A, is needed to meet the ‘‘total energy needs’’ of the country. 

We have opposed any designations that would erect additional barriers to responsible oil and gas exploration in the NPR–A where there is no demonstrated need. 

Millions of acres on the North Slope are already essentially locked up as Wilderness, 

National Parks or similarly restrictive status, and more of these efforts threaten to 

‘‘paint us into a corner’’ within our own region. 

The petroleum reserve, set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923, was explored by the U.S. Navy in the 1940s and 1950s using older methods that polluted 

some lands and damaged the landscape. The Bureau of Land Management recently 

published its management plan for the cleanup of what are now called legacy wells 

in NPR–A. We support the plan, and our residents will benefit from the BLM’s goal 

of remediating the most hazardous legacy wells first. The cleanup of the legacy wells 

is a debt owed to North Slope residents and the American public. It should be supported by the Federal budget, as is the case with formerly used defense sites, for 

example, and not from Federal proceeds that would otherwise be going to North 

Slope communities. 

We are encouraged that Congress is taking the appropriate steps to require the 

DOI to revisit its decision. 

Perhaps the Committee is also aware that yesterday the State of Alaska proposed 

to Interior Secretary Jewell the wintertime exploration of the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). We support the State’s proposal because it is 

directly aligned with our message on ANWR that has been unchanged now for more 

than 20 years. Exploration of the Coastal Plain, mandated by law, can be performed 

51

in the wintertime and leave no lasting impacts on the land. Seismic evaluation of 

the Coastal Plain will give Congress and the American people the information needed to make reasonable decisions of the public lands in the wildlife refuge. 

Mr. Chairman and committee members, thank you for the opportunity to provide 

input into this process. Our intent is to remain at the table with both government 

agencies and industry explorers. Please do not to prevent us from meeting our responsibility to our grandchildren and future generations. As Congress goes forward 

to debate this issue, I ask you to remember the impacts that your decisions will 

have on our communities, our culture and our people. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you for your testimony and for being here. 

Mr. Ekstrom? 

STATEMENT OF JACK R. EKSTROM, VICE PRESIDENT, CORPORATE AND GOVERNMENT RELATIONS, WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION 

Mr. EKSTROM. Chairman Lamborn and members of the Committee, good morning. I am Jack Ekstrom, Vice President of Whiting Petroleum Corporation, a Denver-based, New York Stock Exchange-traded exploration and production company. Whiting was 

founded in 1980, and has endured the ups and downs of the exploration production business since then. Whiting became a publicly 

traded company in 2003 and, through acquisitions, doubled the size 

of the firm in 2004, and again in 2005. Among those acquisitions 

were properties in North Dakota that provided Whiting with the 

toehold that has allowed us to become the number one oil producer 

in the State. 

How does that translate into jobs? When Whiting went public in 

2003, we had 110 employees. As of May 1, 2013, Whiting employed 

850 individuals. And that represented an increase of more than 

100, just this past year. In Whiting, we now have more than 180 

open positions. 

A drilling rig employs approximately 25 individuals, and a frack 

crew employs approximately 65 individuals. We have two full-time 

frack crews employed. There are approximately 40 vendors involved in the drilling of any well. If each vendor had only a single 

employee, that would be another 40 jobs. And you add it all up and 

it approaches 700 indirect jobs created by our activity alone. These 

people need a place to live, they need food, daycare, schools, stores, 

and churches. The impact of our efforts on the economy, obviously, 

is far-reaching. 

We are fortunate that oil-bearing shale such as the Bakken in 

North Dakota and Montana, the Niobrara in Wyoming and Colorado, and the Eagle Ford in Texas exist in the United States. Much 

of the surface and mineral ownership in these locales is by individuals, with a minor ownership by the Federal and State governments. Obtaining permits from the State agencies is a reasonable 

process. Areas where we are having difficulty, however, are on 

Forest Service lands in Stark County, North Dakota, and the 

Pawnee Grasslands in Weld County, Colorado. The average time to 

receive an approved Federal drilling permit is 298 days for us. On 

average, we receive an approved drilling permit from North Dakota 

and Colorado regulators in less than 40 days. 

Whiting, like the vast majority of our peers, strives to prudently 

manage our assets for our shareholders, for the State and Federal 

52

Government areas where we operate, and for the mineral interest 

owners who have allowed us to develop their resource. We strive 

to be good stewards of the environment, to preserve the environmental resource for future generations. 

I have provided the Committee a Whiting map of operations in 

a portion of Colorado. It provides graphic evidence of how our operational focus and many other operators is on private and Stateowned lands. On this map, the light green shaded acreage is federally owned. Many of these tracks are relatively small, and you can 

see that if you get up close to this map. These Federal lands have 

been nominated multiple times in recent years, but they have 

never been offered, though our conversations with leasing authorities have made clear we and others, as lessees, would be happy to 

accept no surface occupancy stipulations. 

Nevertheless, the lands are not offered, and U.S. citizens are denied the multiple benefits associated with their development. This 

is not only the case in Colorado. The Federal Government owns 

millions of acres prospected for oil and gas across the Intermountain West. 

The unmistakable conclusion is that the prosperity, the jobs, the 

harvest of domestic resources from unconventional oil and gas 

plays, enhanced recovery projects, and technology breakthroughs to 

come, can only be realized to their potential by mandating the Department of the Interior devise and publicize a plan to encourage 

development, provide leasing certainty, and streamline oil and gas 

permitting. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views, and I look 

forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ekstrom follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JACK R. EKSTROM, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT AND

CORPORATE RELATIONS, WHITING PETROLEUM CORPORATION

TESTIMONY ON H.R. 1964, H.R. 1965, H.R. 1394, H.R 555

Tapping America’s Unconventional Oil Resources for Job Creation and Affordable 

Domestic Energy: Technology, Policy and Legislative Pathways 

Mr. Chairman Lamborn, and members of the Committee. Good morning. I am 

Jack Ekstrom, Vice President of Whiting Petroleum Corporation, a Denver-based, 

New York Stock Exchange traded Exploration and Production Company. Whiting 

was founded in 1980 and has endured the ups and downs of the E&P business since 

then. Whiting became a publicly traded company in 2003 and through acquisitions 

doubled the size of the firm in 2004 and again in 2005. Those acquisitions provided 

three assets that today comprise approximately 95 percent of our 345 million barrels 

of oil equivalent (BOE) reserves. Those assets are the Postle Field, located in Texas 

County, Oklahoma; the North Ward Estes Field located in Ward and Winkler Counties, Texas; and several properties in the Williston Basin of North Dakota that provided Whiting with the toe hold that has allowed us to become the number three 

oil producer in that State. 

What sets Whiting apart from many of our peers is we are an oil company. Based 

on either production or reserves we are approximately 85 percent oil. In the first 

quarter of 2013 our net production was just over 89,000 BOE per day. What has 

enabled Whiting to grow production from 33,100 BOE per day in 2005 to over 

89,000 BOE per day in 2013 is technology. Drilling horizontal Bakken wells in 

North Dakota is not a new concept. In the late 1980s and early 90s several operators were drilling horizontal wells in the Bakken. However it was taking them XXX 

days and they were relying totally on Mother Nature to provide the fracturing. 

Sometimes she provided it, sometimes she did not. That activity was followed by a 

round of drilling in 2000 through 2005 in the Elm Coulee Field in Richland County, 

Montana. In this round of drilling, horizontal wells were drilled not in the Bakken 

Shale, but in a dolomitic section in what was identified the Middle Bakken. These 

53

4,000 to 7,000 foot laterals were fracture stimulated with one big frac job. This effort was very successful and was responsible for the big production increase that 

occurred in Montana during the early part of this century. 

Whiting did not have a material lease position in the Bakken in Montana, so we 

tasked our technical staff to look other places in the Williston Basin and in other 

basins where we might repeat what had occurred in the Elm Coulee field. We had 

learned that we probably did not want to drill in the shale, we needed a poor grade 

reservoir rock to provide the conduit for the oil to get from the shale to the horizontal wellbore. Staff identified an area on the Eastern side of the Williston Basin 

in a very lightly drilled area in Mountrail County, North Dakota. Whiting leased 

around 100,000 acres and drilled several wells utilizing the same technology that 

had been employed in Montana and the results were not very encouraging. Other 

operators were also attempting to get the Bakken to produce in North Dakota and 

they were also having mixed results. In August of 2007 Whiting drilled a well 

named the Locken 11–22H. This well was drilled across two sections, 2 square 

miles, with a lateral length of approximately 10,000 feet. A new Frac Point technology being developed by Baker Hughes was utilized where we ran 10 swell packers on the outside of the 41⁄2′′ diameter pipe that was installed in the horizontal portion of the well. When swell packers come in contact with hydrocarbons, they adsorb 

the hydrocarbon, swell, and create a seal between the pipe and the rock walls of 

the borehole. This segregates the horizontal wellbore into 10 separate sections. In 

between each set of swell packers is a sliding sleeve that is opened by dropping successively larger ceramic balls to activate the sleeves. This allows the horizontal 

wellbore to be hydraulically fracture-stimulated 10 times, rather than just a single 

time as earlier technology allowed. This technology was a game changer. The 

Locken had an initial production rate over 1,600 BOE per day. 

Today, in the Bakken, Whiting drills down 10,000′ vertically, close to 2 miles, 

turns and drills a 61⁄4′′ diameter hole horizontally for another 2 miles. We run 41⁄2′′ pipe in the well. Sliding sleeve technology has advanced and now allows us to run 

up to 40 sliding sleeves and swell packers on the outside of the pipe. The drilling 

rig is moved off, production facilities are constructed, frac tanks are moved on location and filled with up to 50,000 barrels (2.1 million gallons) of water. A pressure 

pumping company is moved on location and the wells are frac’d with up to 2 million 

pounds of sand in 40+/¥ individual frac stages. This entire fracture stimulation 

treatment is completed in around 24 hours. The pressure pumping company is 

moved off location and the well is placed on production. 

Our goal is to have zero gas emissions from the well during flowback. The associated gas produced with the Bakken oil must be processed before it can be sold. The 

gas has a high BTU content in its native state. Whiting has constructed two gas 

plants in North Dakota; one in Mountrail County and a second in Stark County to 

process this gas. Liquids are removed from the gas and we sell the residue into the 

local market. We are processing as much gas from other operator’s wells as we are 

from the wells Whiting has drilled. We have built two oil gathering systems and 

we are transporting as much of the produced oil as possible from the basin via pipeline. 

If the frac job is performed in Sanish Field, a micro-seismic survey of the frac is 

recorded to determine what portion of the reservoir was frac’d. In March of 2010 

Whiting completed the installation of 298 permanent seismic monitors across the 

Sanish field. This installation allows us to record data and map the fracture stimulations to determine the rock volume contacted with the frac job. 

I am going to switch gears and talk a bit about our Enhanced Oil Recovery 

projects. We are utilizing CO2 to recover an additional 15–20 percent of the oil in 

these reservoirs. At North Ward Estes, in Texas we are injecting 325 million cubic 

feet per day of CO2 managing 790 patterns containing more than 2,000 wells total. 

About one-half of the CO2 we inject stays in the reservoir. The CO2 that is recycled 

is separated, purified utilizing a membrane technology and re-injected. Whiting has 

recently executed a contract with Summit Energy to utilize the CO2 from their coal 

gasification plant. 

Much of what I have discussed would not have been possible even 5 years ago. 

Unconventional resource plays and technology have impacted every facet of our 

business from consummating the lease to reporting production. Because of the size 

of the resource plays we have gone from leasing portions of townships to leasing 

counties. To assist with this effort we have digitized lease records for entire counties. We routinely drill a 20,000′ horizontal well in 15 to 20 days. We utilize technology to send information being recorded at the bit to the surface in real time. The 

engineers and geologists in Denver can access this information at their desk. Sliding 

sleeve technology has continued to advance. Whiting was the first company to pump 

a 24 and 40 stage frac utilizing sliding sleeves. 

54

We have a rock lab located in our Denver office where we have two scanning electron microscopes (SEM) to help us understand how oil is produced from these unconventional reservoirs. The resolution with these microscopes is about a 

nanometer, about the size of a methane molecule. The Helios Nanolab 650 SEM allows us to create a 3D visualization of a cube of the reservoir rock. With this 3D 

visualization we can examine the size and shape of the pore throats in the rock. 

What we have learned is although natural gas will flow through a shale, i.e. the 

Barnett, oil molecules are too large to fit through the pore throats. We need to find 

a pseudo-reservoir located in proximity to the shale to allow oil to be produced. Our 

goal is to transfer what we have learned in North Dakota to other basins. We are 

actively working in the DJ Basin in Colorado and the Delaware Basin in west 

Texas. In each of these areas our results are encouraging. We believe there is potential to utilize what we know in several other prospects located in other basins in 

the lower 48 States. 

How does this translate into jobs? When Whiting went public in 2003 we had 110 

employees. As of May 1, 2013 Whiting employed 850 individuals. In Whiting we now 

have more than 180 open positions. Today we have 24 drilling rigs in operation. A 

drilling rig employs approximately 25 individuals. A frac crew employs approximately 65 individuals and we have two full time frac crews employed. There are 

approximately 40 vendors involved in the drilling of a well. If each vendor had one 

employee, that would be another 40 jobs. Add it all up and it approaches 600 indirect jobs created by our activity. These people need a place to live, they need food, 

and schools and Walmarts. The impact of our efforts on the economy is far reaching. 

A topic getting a fair share of attention these days is the price of gasoline at the 

pump. Oil companies get lumped together and get blamed for the price of gas. In 

this regard, Whiting is similar to the farmer, we are price takers. We try to protect 

our cash flow utilizing hedges and the commodity markets but we have little influence on the overall price. To impose legislation that would make it more expensive 

to produce oil would make no sense. Along those lines, the Keystone XL pipeline 

was (or is) scheduled to transport around 200,000 barrels per day of North Dakota 

production to the refining markets. This would be most beneficial and help alleviate 

the high price differentials that have been experienced in North Dakota. This would 

improve the net backs and increase the royalties paid to the Federal Government, 

the State of North Dakota and the mineral interest owner. 

We are fortunate that oil-bearing shales, such as the Bakken in North Dakota and 

Montana, the Niobrara in Wyoming and Colorado and the Eagle Ford in Texas exist 

in the United States. Much of the surface and mineral ownership in these locales 

is by individuals with a minor ownership by the Federal and State governments. 

Obtaining permits from the State agencies is a reasonable process. Areas where we 

are having difficulty are on Forest Service lands in Stark County, North Dakota and 

in the Pawnee Grasslands in Weld County, Colorado. The average time to receive 

an approved Federal drilling permit is 298 days. On average we receive an approved 

drilling permit from North Dakota and Colorado regulators in less than 40 days. 

Whiting, like the vast majority of our peers, strives to be a good steward of our 

assets for our shareholders, for the State and governmental areas where we operate, 

and for the mineral interest owners who have allowed us to develop their resource. 

We strive to be good stewards of the environment to preserve the environmental resource for future generations. 

I am providing a Whiting map of operations in a portion of Colorado to the Committee. It provides graphic evidence of how our operational focus, and many other 

operators, is on private and State-owned lands. On this map the green shaded acreage is federally owned. Many of these tracts are relatively small and are surrounded 

by State and private acreage that has been leased. These Federal lands have been 

nominated multiple times in recent years, but they have never been offered, though 

our conversations with leasing authorities have made clear we as lessees would be 

happy to accept ‘‘no surface occupancy’’ stipulations. Nevertheless, the lands are not 

offered and U.S. citizens are denied the multiple benefits associated with their development. 

This is not only the case in North Dakota. The Federal Government owns millions 

of acres prospective for oil and gas across the Inter-Mountain West. The unmistakable conclusion is that the prosperity, the jobs, the harvest of domestic resources—

from unconventional oil and gas plays, enhanced recovery projects and technology 

breakthroughs to come—can only be realized to their potential by mandating the 

Department of the Interior devise and publicize a plan to: encourage development, 

provide leasing certainty and streamline oil and gas permitting. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views.

55

Mr. LAMBORN. You are certainly welcome. 

Mr. Britain? 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. BRITAIN, PRESIDENT AND CEO, 

ENERGYNET.COM, INC. 

Mr. BRITAIN. Chairman Lamborn, Representatives, staff members, we very much appreciate the opportunity to get to be here 

today. I want to recognize the bill’s sponsor, Representative Johnson of Ohio. 

The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, H.R. 555, provides the opportunity to dramatically improve the Bureau of Land Management sale of on-shore oil and gas leases. As Representative Johnson has stated in the past, the Leasing Reform Act of 1987 was 

‘‘unintentionally’’ restrictive, in that it bound the BLM to only be 

able to sell oil and gas leases in an Internet-auction-only format, 

which is not surprising, of course, because there was no Internet 

in 1987. 

I am Cofounder and President of EnergyNet, a company which, 

over the last 14 years, has conducted the sale of more than 39,000 

leases and oil and gas properties, and a continuous live Internet 

auction format. H.R. 555 will amend that restrictive language, 

‘‘oral auction only,’’ in the Mineral Leasing Act, and authorize the 

Secretary of the Interior to ‘‘conduct onshore oil and gas lease sales 

through Internet-based, live lease sales.’’ This allows the BLM to 

utilize the incredibly powerful technological reach of an Internet oil 

and gas property auction marketplace. It will increase participation 

and competition, which results in greater revenue to the BLM. 

Under the current oral-only auction system, bidders must travel 

to 12 different auction venues. I submit to you this seems unnecesVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK

81285.001.eps
56

sary and inefficient in today’s environment. With the Internet as 

an auction platform, a bidder could participate from any web 

browser in any of these auctions. If you have access to a computer, 

you have a seat at a BLM auction. Increased competition among 

bidders translates to more BLM revenue. 

Picture this room, if you would, as one of these 12 live auction 

venues. What you will see is 20 or 30 people holding up a paddle 

or a piece of paper, bidding on BLM leases. Now, contrast that, if 

you will, to what we do in the private sector with an online auction 

format. There are 17,000 bidders in that room, coast to coast, bidding on leases and properties. There just simply is no comparison. 

Internet bidders can evaluate leases and place bids from anywhere without travel expense or time away from the office. That 

is customer service by the BLM. And it is how EnergyNet has done 

business for nearly 14 years. We believe the results confirm the 

process. We have sold properties all across the United States, generating more than $1 billion in property sales, and we have done 

it all on the Internet. 

This bipartisan, historic H.R. 555 opens the door to that same 

opportunity for the BLM. The oil and gas industry has already embraced the Internet as a critical tool in their investment arsenal, 

and the BLM already effectively uses the Internet. We have successfully divested properties on the Internet for Chevron, Exxon, 

Shell, and 3,000 other private and public companies. We have 

signed 5-year contracts with the State of North Dakota and Utah 

to sell their State leases, and that is directly analogous, selling 

State leases on State minerals, just like selling Federal leases on 

Federal minerals. 

In 2011, EnergyNet signed a 5-year contract to conduct Internet 

auctions of oil and gas assets for the Federal Deposit Insurance 

Corporation. In 2009, EnergyNet sold BLM leases using the firstever Internet auction venue. We were fortunate enough to have 

been selected to do that job for the BLM. And that information is 

provided in our separate material that we have handed in. 

OGLIAP, O-G-L-I-A-P, OGLIAP is the acronym, the Oil and Gas 

Lease Internet Auction Pilot. 

In conclusion, H.R. 555 will bring the 1987 unintentionally restrictive Mineral Leasing Act into the 21st century by increasing 

participation and competition for the BLM’s lease parcels, to ensure the best return for the Federal taxpayer. And, of course, that 

is the key. Passage of this bill will benefit the BLM, the oil and 

gas industry, and, most of all, the taxpayers of this great Nation. 

This bill does not increase permitting of wells, it simply increases 

the value of what the BLM gets for their leases. 

On behalf of the EnergyNet team, we thank you for this opportunity to share our experiences, and we encourage your sponsorship and passage of H.R. 555. Thank you for your kind attention. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Britain follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM W. BRITAIN, CEO, ENERGYNET.COM, INC. 

TESTIMONY ON THE BLM LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS ACT—H.R. 555

The BLM is currently hindered by outdated legislative language. During this presentation we will explore how you can fix this problem. As members of Congress, you 

57

have an opportunity to dramatically improve the BLM’s revenue-generating oil and 

gas leasing program. 

EnergyNet is a company that has spent nearly 14 years conducting oil and gas 

auctions on a fully Internet-based, continuous oil and gas marketplace, and we appreciate the opportunity to share our professional experience with you. 

Let’s start with the biggest question: Why does the BLM need the freedom to utilize the Internet for their lease program? 

There are many reasons why an Internet auction is superior to a traditional, live, 

outcry auction. The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act that you are considering would 

allow the BLM to harness the power of a vast Internet-based oil and gas auction 

marketplace, which presents a host of new opportunities to the BLM. 

In this presentation, we would like to highlight three of the benefits of passing 

the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act:

• The opportunity to modernize the BLM leasing program; • The increased participation and competition an Internet platform fosters; and • The increased revenue the BLM can realize as a result of that competition, and 

as a result of the cost savings an Internet platform can provide.

To modernize the BLM’s Leasing Program, we must first realize that the current 

legislation is simply outdated, and ‘‘accidentally specific.’’ The Internet, and certainly an Internet auction platform, was unheard of in 1920, but at the time, lease 

sales could be conducted by ‘‘competitive bidding.’’

Unfortunately, the unintentionally-limited wording of the Leasing Reform Act of 

1987 bound the BLM to an oral auction format, which has become outdated in the 

26 years since. 

The BLM Live Internet Auctions Act fixes this—allowing the Secretary of the Interior the option to ‘‘conduct onshore oil and gas lease sales through Internet-based 

live lease sales,’’ modernizing the Mineral Leasing Act. 

Under the current, oral-auction-only system, bidders who wish to participate in 

lease sales from multiple State offices have to deal with different physical locations 

to travel to, different hotels to stay in, different auction venues, and even different 

auctioneers. 

With the Internet as an option for the BLM, a bidder could participate from any 

web browser, from any location, using the same tools and bidding interface for every 

sale. Bidders can even participate in multiple lease sales that are being held simultaneously. 

If you have a web browser, you already have a seat at the auction. 

While participants will appreciate a standardized, uniform auction experience, 

BLM State offices should also expect a system that lets them customize their individual sales wherever necessary, and one that plugs into their existing workflow. 

Rather than retrofit each State office’s sale process to fit an Internet model, a 

well-designed Internet auction serves the State office, and will provide each office 

with an easy way to:

• Transmit sale group and parcel information to the auction Web site, and to potential bidders; 

• Display each parcel’s due diligence information in a uniform format; 

• Update that parcel information instantly when new information becomes available or a parcel has to be pulled from the auction, and then immediately contact 

every participant who viewed the now-outdated information; 

• Perform the actual auction itself; and then 

• Receive transactional data and other post-sale reporting after the sale in a format that best suits the State office.

BLM offices with unique bidder qualification requirements, parcel stipulations or 

timing restrictions can have these terms built directly into the sale, and even automated in many cases. 

This ultimately reduces costs and workload for the BLM, while letting individual 

State offices retain the unique characteristics of their sales. 

Even one large room full of potential Buyers pales in comparison to an entire Nation full of potential buyers. There is no doubt: An Internet-based auction reaches 

more people than a traditional auction ever could. 

For example, EnergyNet has more-than-17,000 active, sophisticated, registered, 

accredited oil and gas investors, representing every State in the United States. 

Every EnergyNet Buyer with a bid allowance has had their identification validated 

through direct communication with that buyer’s banker, in order to circumvent 

fraudulent bidding activity 

EnergyNet buyers can evaluate assets and place bids from anywhere, without 

travel hassles or expenses. It’s how we’ve done business for nearly 14 years, and 

58

we believe the results confirm the process: Our Internet marketplace has sold more 

than 39,000 properties all across the United States since we began in 1999—over 

$1 billion in total sales, and we’ve done it all through a web browser. 

This is the power of an Internet marketplace, and this is exactly what the BLM 

Live Internet Auctions Act opens the door to. 

Guhan Subramanian serves both as a professor of Law & Business at Harvard 

Law School and as a professor of Business Law at Harvard Business School—the 

only person in Harvard’s history to hold tenured appointments at both universities. 

Professor Subramanian’s research focuses on negotiations, auctions, and ‘‘deal 

process design.’’ His work has been featured in the Harvard Business Review, the 

Harvard Law Review, the Wall Street Journal, and the New York Times. He is also 

the author of Negotiauctions, a book that explores the connections between negotiations and auctions. 

In 2010, EnergyNet contacted Professor Subramanian and requested that he examine 5 years of our raw, historical auction data, so that we could truly understand 

how our Internet marketplace compared to traditional, live oil and gas auctions. 

Among his conclusions, Professor Subramanian noted the following about using 

the Internet as a marketplace:

• The online auction format attracts bidders who would be unable or unwilling 

to attend on-site auctions, and . . . 

• The online-only process preserves a level playing field among all bidders.

Overall, he said, ‘‘It’s simple: Greater buyer exposure leads to more competition. 

More competition leads to higher returns for sellers.’’

The oil and gas industry understands this, and has embraced the Internet as a 

critical part of their divestment activities. 

EnergyNet’s Internet platform has successfully divested properties for:

• Chevron, Exxon, Shell and other major oil companies 

• Chesapeake, and other large independents 

• Universities and bank trust departments 

• Government institutions, such as the FDIC and the States of North Dakota and 

Utah 

• . . . and even for the BLM, when we were proud to develop and host their Oil 

and Gas Lease Internet Auction Pilot program in 2009—their first opportunity 

to test the viability of an Internet auction

One seller put our Internet auction to the test in a significant way. 

In 2008, EnCana split a large divestiture package, into two equal-sized component 

packages. EnergyNet received one of the packages. The other package was given to 

one of our competitors who hosts a traditional outcry auction with a ‘‘hybrid’’ Internet component. 

Each package was given a reserve price valuation of approximately $16.5 million 

dollars. To ensure that oil and gas prices were the same, both auctions were held 

during the same week. 

Our competitor’s traditional auction sold their package for $18.5 million. 

EnergyNet’s Internet auction sold its package for $24.5 million—over 32 percent 

more than the traditional auction. 

Another of EnergyNet’s sellers, Chevron Incorporated, named the 16th largest 

public company in the world by Forbes Global 2000, has had tremendous success 

divesting oil and gas assets on an Internet-only platform. 

From June 2003 through April 2011, Chevron utilized our Internet auction platform to divest over 2,000 lots from 27 States with a combined anticipated reserve 

price of $87.7 million. Their total actual sales were more than $134 million, a 53 

percent premium over their combined anticipated reserve, and far above their expectations. 

In conclusion: Through modernization, you allow the BLM to increase the participation and competition for every lease sale, and increase their revenue through 

higher parcel values and lower internal costs. 

This can happen for the BLM through the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act. This 

piece of legislation opens the door, by giving the Secretary of the Interior the authorization to establish an Internet leasing program. 

This common sense piece of legislation can truly change the future of the BLM’s 

leasing program. 

That concludes our presentation. On behalf of the entire team at EnergyNet, we 

thank you for the opportunity to share our professional experience with you. 

Thank you very much! 

59

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

On September 13, 2011, the following testimony was submitted to the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on behalf of the Bureau of Land Management in support of H.R. 2752. 

The current bill, H.R. 555, continues the effort that H.R. 2752 began. 

Notable quotes: 

‘‘The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the goal of diversifying and 

expanding the Nation’s onshore leasing program to ensure the best return to the 

Federal taxpayer and supports H.R. 2752. The BLM would like to work with the 

committee on technical and clarifying modifications to the bill and on an amendment pertaining to the location and frequency of lease sales.’’

Regarding the BLM’s Oil and Gas Lease Internet Auction Pilot (OGLIAP) of 2009: 

‘‘The Web site functioned extremely well and the sale was successfully completed. An 

evaluation of the Internet auction found that leasing online would have immediate 

cost savings and benefits, such as potentially increased competition. The Internet 

pilot test had nearly twice as many bidders compared to the average number that 

attend the BLM Colorado’s oral lease sales.’’

‘‘The BLM supports H.R. 2752, which allows the BLM to expand upon its success 

with the oil and gas Internet lease auction pilot project.’’

STATEMENT FOR THE RECORD, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

THE INTERIOR, SEPTEMBER 13, 2011

BEFORE THE HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL

RESOURCES ON H.R. 2752, THE BLM LIVE INTERNET AUCTIONS ACT

Thank you for the opportunity to present this Statement for the Record on 

H.R. 2752, the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act, which authorizes the Secretary of 

the Interior to conduct onshore oil and gas lease sales through Internet-based live 

lease auctions. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) supports the goal of diversifying and expanding the Nation’s onshore leasing program to ensure the best return 

to the Federal taxpayer and supports H.R. 2752. The BLM would like to work with 

the Committee on technical and clarifying modifications to the bill and on an 

amendment pertaining to the location and frequency of lease sales. 

Background

The Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 establishes the statutory framework to promote 

the exploration and development of oil and natural gas from the Federal onshore 

mineral estate. Secretary Salazar has emphasized that as we move toward the new 

energy frontier, the development of conventional energy resources from BLM-managed public lands will continue to play a critical role in meeting the Nation’s energy 

needs. Facilitating the safe, responsible, and efficient development of these domestic 

oil and gas resources is part of the Administration’s broad energy strategy—outlined 

in the President’s Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future—that will protect consumers 

and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil. 

The BLM is working diligently to fulfill its part in securing America’s energy future. The BLM currently manages more than 40 million acres of onshore oil and 

gas leases. In FY 2010, onshore oil production from public lands increased by 5 million barrels from the previous fiscal year as more than 114 million barrels of oil 

were produced from the BLM-managed mineral estate—the most since FY 1997. 

Meanwhile, the nearly 3 trillion cubic feet of natural gas produced from public lands 

made 2010 the second-most productive year of natural gas production on record. In 

2010, conventional energy development from public lands produced 14.1 percent of 

the Nation’s natural gas, and 5.7 percent of its domestically-produced oil. 

Current and future lease sales are benefitting from much-needed reforms that the 

BLM put in place in May 2010. The BLM reforms established a more orderly, open, 

and environmentally sound process for developing oil and gas resources on public 

lands. They focus on making oil and gas leasing more predictable and increasing 

certainty for stakeholders. With these reforms, the number of protests of parcels offered in lease auctions has declined dramatically. During 2011, only 12 percent of 

nearly 900 parcels offered for lease have been protested compared with over 40 percent of parcels offered being protested during the 2 years before the reforms were 

implemented. Twelve lease sales this year have been conducted without any parcels 

being protested. In addition, revenues from lease sales have increased from approximately $165 million dollars in FY 2009 to nearly $235 million dollars to date in FY 

2011. 

60

Onshore Competitive Oil & Gas Lease Sale Process

In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act, the BLM competitively offers eligible 

lands which are available for lease by oral auction on a quarterly basis. As part of 

the competitive leasing process, the BLM accepts informal expressions of interest 

(EOI) and noncompetitive presale offers from industry or other interested parties. 

The BLM collects the requested parcels into draft sale lists and adjudicates them 

for availability, verifying mineral ownership, and ensuring there are no pre-existing 

oil and gas leases on the requested lands. The parcels are then evaluated through 

the BLM multiple-use planning process required by the Federal Land Policy and 

Management Act. 

Once parcels are evaluated and found to be in conformance with BLM Resource 

Management Plans (RMP) and the BLM has documented site-specific National Environmental Policy Act compliance, the parcels are made available and placed on the 

next Notice of Competitive Oil and Gas Lease Sale by the BLM State Office with 

jurisdiction over the lands. Competitive lease sales are held at least quarterly by 

each of the BLM State Offices where there are eligible lands. 

Parties interested in bidding on parcels must attend the oil and gas competitive 

lease sale auction to obtain a competitive lease or make formal arrangements for 

someone to represent them at the auction. No sealed or mailed bids are accepted. 

BLM’s Oil & Gas Internet Lease Auction Pilot

Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior through the Fiscal Year 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 110–161) to establish an oil and gas leasing Internet pilot program, under which the Secretary could conduct lease sales 

through methods other than oral auctions. To carry out the pilot program, the Secretary was permitted to use up to $250,000 from the BLM’s oil and gas Permit Processing Improvement Fund. The BLM developed a pilot oil and gas lease Internet 

auction as an alternative to the quarterly oil and gas oral auctions required by the 

Mineral Leasing Act. The intent of the pilot was to test the feasibility of conducting 

a web-based lease sale auction, and evaluate the potential savings and benefits for 

the Federal Government and lease sale participants. 

On July 8, 2009, the BLM’s Colorado State Office offered the first Federal oil and 

gas lease parcels for sale on the Internet. All parcel evaluation, registration, and 

bidding were performed online. Bidding opened on September 9, 2009, for 7 days 

and closed over a 2-day period on September 16 and 17, 2009. The Web site functioned extremely well and the sale was successfully completed. An evaluation of the 

Internet auction found that leasing online would have immediate cost savings and 

benefits, such as potentially increased competition. The Internet pilot test had nearly twice as many bidders compared to the average number that attend the BLM 

Colorado’s oral lease sales. 

H.R. 2752

H.R. 2752 amends the Mineral Leasing Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct onshore oil and gas lease sales through Internet-based live lease 

sales, in order to expand the Nation’s onshore leasing program and to ensure the 

best return to the Federal taxpayer. The bill also requires the Secretary to conduct 

an analysis of the first 10 Internet based live lease sales and report the findings 

of the analysis to Congress within 90 days following the 10th Internet-based live 

lease sale. 

The BLM supports H.R. 2752, which allows the BLM to expand upon its success 

with the oil and gas Internet lease auction pilot project. The BLM would like to 

work with the Committee to include related language in the bill to provide the Secretary the discretion to hold lease sales (via the Internet or oral auction) more or 

less frequently than quarterly (as currently required by the Mineral Leasing Act) 

or within any State in which lease tracts are available and there is public interest. 

Finally, the BLM would like to work with the Committee on technical and clarifying 

modifications to the bill. 

Conclusion

Thank you again for the opportunity to present this Statement for the Record on 

H.R. 2752. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And you are certainly welcome. 

Ms. Miller, you may begin. 

61

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH S. MILLER, FOUNDER AND MEMBER 

OF BOARD OF DIRECTORS, ALASKA WILDERNESS LEAGUE 

Ms. MILLER. Good morning, Chairman and staff. Thank you for 

the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Mineral Resources on H.R. 1964, the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act. My name is Debbie S. Miller. I 

serve as a founder and a board member for the Alaska Wilderness 

League. I have lived in Alaska since 1975, as a teacher, author, 

mother of two grown daughters. 

Over the past four decades, I have explored the Arctic on numerous trips in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Gates of the Arctic 

National Park, and the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, that I 

will refer to as the Reserve. These explorations and studies of the 

environment and wildlife have involved several thousand miles of 

travel by canoe, by raft, and on foot. My experiences in the Arctic 

have been the foundation and inspiration for many books and articles that I have authored for adults and children. 

Most recently I explored the Reserve on three expeditions, traveling by canoe and on foot for more than 600 miles. Along four of 

the Reserve’s beautiful rivers: the Nigu, the Etiviluk, the Colville 

and the Utukok. I worked with a team of photographers, scientists, 

a sound recording artist, and other writers, including biologist Jeff 

Fair, Rosemary Ahtuangaruak of Barrow, and distinguished anthropologist and long-time Alaskan, Dr. Richard Nelson. We 

worked together to create the first photo essay book about the Reserve, published by Braided River last July 2012. 

I am submitting a copy of this book for the House Resources Library, and I hope that each member of the Committee and staffers 

will have the opportunity to review this book. It was a labor of love 

to describe the beauty, the rich diversity of wildlife and environments, and a cultural history that spans more than 13,000 years, 

including some of the oldest archeological sites in North America. 

It is a vast land, so immense that you can’t measure its bigness. 

It is a land of forever sky, with an endless sweep of rolling tundra, 

long ridges, immense grasslands and wetlands, and the countless 

rivers that curl through the valleys and foothills across the North 

Slope for hundreds of miles to the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. 

It is a land of greats, including two of America’s largest caribou 

herds, huge concentrations of grizzly bears, the biggest deposit of 

dinosaur bones in the Arctic, our largest intact grasslands, and the 

most expansive Arctic wetlands complex in the world, where hundreds of species of birds nest, molt, and stage their migrations from 

five different continents. This is a world-class region, in terms of 

Arctic habitats and wildlife. It is the birthplace for millions of animals, and the ancient land where humans first migrated to North 

America from Asia, crossing the Bering Land Bridge. 

The Reserve, though old, is rich with life. We traveled for weeks 

through some of the wildest country remaining on the planet and 

rarely saw another human or airplane. The Reserve represents the 

Nation’s largest unit of public land, an area about the size of Indiana, where local and Inupiaq residents still hunt and fish, practicing a subsistence lifestyle that reflects thousands of years of living and surviving near the top of the world. 

62

I commend the Department of the Interior for their first plan, 

their efforts creating a very balanced, integrated activity plan for 

the Reserve. The Bureau of Land Management followed a rigorous 

and very public process, seeking out and receiving substantial 

input from local people, Alaskans in general and the citizens of the 

United States. During the drafting process, BLM received over 

400,000 comments, a vast majority in support of a balanced management approach that included the protection of key special areas 

in the Reserve. 

The BLM listened and crafted a well-thought-out plan for the future of the Reserve and America’s Arctic. In the end, it created a 

plan that opens 11.8 million acres, roughly half of the Reserve, to 

oil and gas leasing, including some of the most promising high-potential lands for exploration. At the same time, BLM set aside half 

of the Reserve to protect the highest conservation and subsistence 

values of five designated special areas. 

I do not support H.R. 1964 because it negates the excellent work 

and sound management choices that are represented in the current 

plan. This proposed legislation circumvents public process by nullifying a very strong visionary and balanced plan that has broad 

public support. This legislation would also authorize a redundant 

assessment of hydrocarbon resources within NPR–A after the 

USGS just recently completed such an analysis. This amounts to 

wasteful spending. 

Thank you for letting me testify, and I would be happy to answer 

any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DEBORAH S. MILLER, TEACHER, AUTHOR, ARCTIC EX- PLORER, GUIDE, MOTHER, AND FOUNDING BOARD MEMBER, ALASKA WILDERNESS

LEAGUE

HR 1964—THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE ALASKA ACCESS ACT

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on H.R. 1964—‘‘The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’. My name is Deborah S. Miller. 

I’ve lived in Alaska since 1975, working as a teacher, author, and mother of two 

grown daughters. Over the past four decades, I’ve extensively explored the Arctic 

on numerous trips in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, Gates of the Arctic National Park, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. These explorations and 

studies of the environment and wildlife have involved several thousand miles of 

travel by canoe, raft, and on foot. My experiences in the Arctic have been the foundation and inspiration for many books and articles that I’ve authored for adults and 

children. 

Most recently, I explored the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (‘‘Reserve’’) on 

three expeditions, traveling by canoe and on foot for more than 600 miles, along four 

of the Reserve’s beautiful rivers: the Nigu, Etiviluk, Colville and the Utukok. I 

worked with a team of photographers, scientists, a sound recording artist, and other 

writers, including biologist Jeff Fair, and Rosemary Ahtuangaruak of Barrow, and 

distinguished anthropologist and long-time Alaskan, Dr. Richard Nelson. We worked 

together to create the first photo-essay book about the Reserve, published by Braided River in July of 2012. 

I helped found the Alaska Wilderness League in 1993 to ensure that policy-makers in D.C. and elsewhere had accurate information on which to make public land 

management decisions. The League has an extensive environmental justice program 

through which it brings Alaska Natives and other Arctic residents to D.C. to ensure 

that their voices are heard. 

Today’s hearing is partially focused on the topic of my most recent book—the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, which is the largest single land management unit 

in the United States. After WWI, the Reserve was set aside by President Harding 

in 1923 as Naval Petroleum Reserve #4 for emergency defense purposes. The Navy 

63

1 42 U.S.C. § 6504. 

2 42 U.S.C. § 6503 (‘‘With respect to any activities related to the protection of environmental, 

fish and wildlife, and historical or scenic values, the Secretary of the Interior shall assume all 

responsibilities . . . [and] may promulgate such rules and regulations as he deems necessary 

and appropriate for the protection of such values within the reserve.’’). 3 42 U.S.C. § 6504(a) (If exploration occurs within the Utukok River, the Teshekpuk Lake 

areas, and other areas containing any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or 

historical or scenic value (as designated by the Secretary), it must be conducted ‘‘in a manner 

which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values.’’); see also H.R. Rep. 94–81(I), 

94th Cong., 2nd Sess. 1976, 1975 WL 12380 (acknowledging the value of the western side of 

the reserve as a calving ground of the Arctic caribou herd; the northeastern coastal plain area 

as the best waterfowl nesting area on the North Slope, and lands in and adjacent to the Brooks 

Range as being highly scenic). 4See Pub. L. 96–514, 94 Stat 2957 (1980) (‘‘any exploration or production undertaken pursuant to this section shall be in accordance with section 104(b) of the [Petroleum Reserve Act] of 

1976’’ which provided for protection of Special Areas). 5 42 U.S.C. § 6506a(b), Mitigation of adverse effects (‘‘Activities undertaken pursuant to this 

Act shall include or provide for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary 

deems necessary or appropriate to mitigate reasonably foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.’’) 6 43 CFR § 2361.1(e)(1). 

was in the process of converting from coal to oil for its fuel supply. In 1976, Congress enacted the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act (NPRPA) and transferred management of the Reserve to the Department of the Interior. Under this act, 

Congress recognized the need to conserve the extraordinary natural resource values 

of the Reserve and explicitly authorized the Secretary of the Interior to establish 

‘‘special areas’’ that contained ‘‘significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife 

historical or scenic value’’ and to provide ‘‘maximum protection’’ to areas with exceptional surface values.1

At over 23 million acres, the Reserve is roughly the size of Indiana. It is a vast 

landscape that remains largely undeveloped. This large landscape can allow for a 

balanced approach between oil and gas development and the protection of the Reserve’s unique values, just as Congress has called for in the NPRPA. These values 

include subsistence resources that are critical to meeting the needs of Alaska Natives, and other local residents. 

The requirement that this balance be struck is firmly established in the letter and 

spirit of NPRPA and the 1980 Interior Department Appropriations Act that amended NPRPA and provided for leasing within the Reserve. NPRPA requires the Secretary of Interior to assume responsibility for protection of ‘‘significant subsistence, 

recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value.’’2 In the law, NPRPA 

specifically recognizes the importance of the Utukok River, Teshekpuk Lake area, 

and other areas found to have significant natural or historic values, by requiring 

any oil and gas activities in these areas to assure ‘‘maximum protection’’ of those 

values.3

In the 1980 Interior Department Appropriations Act that amended the NPRPA 

and opened the Reserve to leasing, Congress reiterated the importance of Special 

Areas 4 and directed the Secretary to provide for ‘‘conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions’’ to mitigate ‘‘reasonably foreseeable and significant adverse effects’’ on surface values.5 Regulations governing the Reserve provide for the Bureau of Land 

Management (‘‘BLM’’) to ‘‘limit, restrict, or prohibit use of and access to lands within 

the Reserve, including ‘‘Special Areas’’ and to take action to ‘‘protect fish and wildlife breeding, nesting, spawning, lambing of calving activity, major migrations of 

fish and wildlife, and other environmental, scenic, or historic values.’’6 To summarize, Congress has long-recognized and directed that the Reserve’s remarkable environmental and social values be identified and protected. 

H.R. 1964 would directly contradict this long history of the congressionally recognized need to provide for balanced management of the Reserve to ensure protection 

of significant surface resources. 

Exceptional Biological Resources in the Reserve

The Reserve contains a remarkable diversity of pristine and globally significant 

wild lands and biological resources that remain largely intact. The Reserve provides 

essential and critical habitat for a broad array of species and includes areas that 

support subsistence activities for more than 40 Alaska Native communities spread 

across northern and western Alaska. 

The Reserve’s wetland complex of ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, and lagoons provide nesting, feeding, molting and staging habitat for migratory bird populations of 

national and international significance. Marine mammals, including the polar bear, 

walrus, beluga whale, and several species of ice seal, use the Reserve’s shorelines, 

64

7 Notice of intent to prepare an Integrated Activity Plan Environmental Impact Statement for 

the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska was released on July 28 2010. See: https://

www.blm.gov/epl-front-office/projects/nepa/5251/14500/15450/default.jsp?projectName=DOIBLM-AK-0000-2010-0001-EIS. 

lagoons, and barrier islands. The Reserve provides the calving grounds, insect relief 

areas, and migration corridors for the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd and the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, which are vital subsistence resources for North Slope and 

Western arctic communities. Important populations of predators including grizzly 

bear, wolf, wolverine, and arctic fox are found throughout the Reserve. Other values 

include: designated Important Bird Areas of international significance, ancient archeological and paleontological sites; and extraordinary wilderness and wild river 

values that are found throughout this remarkable landscape. 

During my three expeditions to the Reserve I observed nesting birds that had migrated from six different continents, such as the Northern Wheatear from Africa, 

or the American Golden Plover from Patagonia. I witnessed the migration of the 

Western Arctic Herd, where hundreds of cows with week-old calves swam across the 

river in front of our tent. It was amazing and humbling to discover ancient archeological sites, some dating back more than 10,000 years, and I was stunned to discover and hold an ankle bone of a duck-billed dinosaur that lived on the North Slope 

75 million years ago! The Reserve has a rich history, and an incredible diversity of 

wildlife and habitats. The wilderness frontier that we traveled through was like no 

other in terms of its vastness and wildness. 

National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Integrated Activity Plan

In July of 2010 the BLM published a Notice of Intent to prepare an Integrated 

Activity Plan and associated Environmental Impact Statement for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.7 The notice kicked off more than 21⁄2 years of scoping meetings, public hearings, and draft plans, concluding with the National Petroleum Reserve Integrated Activity Plan Record of Decision (‘‘2013 ROD’’) on February 21, 

2013. This was the final action of an extensive process that resulted in the first ever 

area-wide plan for the Reserve. 

I was one of many Alaskans who testified at the scoping meeting in Fairbanks, 

and submitted written testimony in support of Management Alternative B of the 

draft integrated activity plan. 

The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska Final Integrated Activity Plan (‘‘IAP’’) 

represents a well thought out and balanced approach toward management of the Reserve. The IAP opened up roughly half of the Reserve’s acreage (encompassing 72 

percent of Interior’s estimate of the recoverable oil in the Reserve) to oil and gas 

leasing while protecting the other half as five Special Areas critical to wildlife and 

subsistence use. Further, the IAP also expressly does not foreclose the placement 

of a pipeline across the Reserve. Through this balanced approach the Department 

of Interior has found a reasonable balance for industry, conservation groups, Alaska 

Natives, sportsmen, recreationists, scientists, and other groups. 

During the drafting process, the BLM received over 400,000 comments, a vast majority in support of the protection of key Special Areas in the Reserve. These individuals included Alaskans, sportsmen, scientists, Alaskan Tribes and many others from 

around the country that care about the values within this world-class American 

treasure. The Department of the Interior (DOI) responded to this overwhelming support, by putting forward a final IAP that allows for access to oil and gas resources 

on 11.8 million acres, while safeguarding other areas—the most critical wildlife 

habitat—as unavailable for oil and gas leasing. 

The IAP is in keeping with the long history of Congressional support for a balanced approach to management of the Reserve. 

Special Areas

Going back to 1976, and as reflected in the IAP, the BLM has appropriately implemented the congressional mandate to provide ‘‘maximum protection’’ for significant surface values and thus honor the area for more than just its potential oil and 

gas resources. The Reserve currently contains five designated Special Areas recognized by the BLM. These include: Teshekpuk Lake, the Utukok River Uplands, 

Kasegaluk Lagoon, the Colville River and Peard Bay. 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area 

Teshekpuk Lake is the largest freshwater lake on the North Slope and the third 

largest lake in Alaska. The lake and its associated Special Area support a unique 

and globally significant assemblage of biological and subsistence resources. The 

Teshekpuk Lake Special Area includes the most important goose molting habitat in 

the Arctic and provides vital habitat for tens of thousands of geese that gather anVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
65

8Ground zero. (oil industry effects on eskimos) June 22, 2001. Amicus Journal. Miller, Deborah S. See: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-76586494/ground-zero-oil-industry.html. 9Letter of R. Ashenfelter, Chair of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group to the 

Bureau of Land Management Planning Team re: the Integrated Activity Plan-Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, dated June 1, 2012. 10 NPRA/IAP FEIS vol 1 p. 22. 11Letter of R. Ashenfelter, Chair of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group to the 

Bureau of Land Management Planning Team re: the Integrated Activity Plan-Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, dated June 1, 2012. 12Kessel and Cade 1956 and 1958, Cade 1960, White and Cade 1971. 13 NPRA/IAP FEIS vol. 1 p. 22. 

nually in the area, including Brant, Greater white-fronted geese, Snow geese, and 

Canada geese. In the fall, the waterfowl that rely on the wetlands in this area migrate back south utilizing all four North American flyways and several international 

flyways. 

The area around Teshekpuk Lake also includes the concentrated calving and insect relief areas for the Teshekpuk Lake Caribou Herd, which provides a critical 

subsistence harvest resource for North Slope communities, especially Barrow and 

Nuiqsut, a community that I have visited on two occasions. I wrote an in-depth article for the Amicus Journal about the effects of oil development on the lives of people 

in Nuiqsut. I was touched and troubled by some of the health and subsistence struggles that villagers face because of increased development around their community.8

The Western Arctic Caribou Herd Working Group, an organization comprised of 

subsistence users from small communities across northern and western Alaska, has 

identified and recommended that the lands surrounding Teshekpuk Lake should not 

be leased or developed for oil and gas.9

Utukok River Uplands Special Area 

The Utukok River Uplands Special Area was originally established in 1977 and 

currently spans approximately 7.1 million acres containing much of the Western 

Arctic Herd’s calving and insect-relief habitat. The herd numbered approximately 

75,000 when the Special Area was established, and now at approximately 340,000, 

is Alaska’s largest caribou herd and one of the three largest in North America. The 

IAP expanded the Utukok River Uplands Special Area by approximately 3.1 million 

acres to more fully encompass prime calving and insect-relief habitat for the herd 

within the Reserve.10 The expansion of the Utukok River Uplands Special Area 

within the IAP is consistent with the recommendations from the Western Arctic 

Caribou Herd Working Group.11

In addition to the important caribou habitat, this special area has the highest concentration of grizzly bears in the Arctic, and healthy populations of wolverines and 

wolves, as well as many species of migratory songbirds, shorebirds, raptors and waterfowl, including the bar-tailed godwit, a shorebird that makes the longest known 

non-stop migration across the Pacific Ocean from Alaska to New Zealand! 

The Utukok River Uplands Special Area includes the northern edge of the Brooks 

Range Mountains and foothills, as well as the expansive tundra grasslands that roll 

north toward the sea. This region holds outstanding wilderness values and many 

ancient archeological sites, some dating back more than 10,000 years ago. The 

Inupiaq word Utukok means ‘‘something old.’’ Indeed, this is the area where the 

first North Americans lived who crossed the Bering Land Bridge from Asia. During 

my 2011 trip down the Utukok River, we discovered chert flakes from an archaeological site where human hands had crafted tools and weapons long ago. We felt 

incredibly humbled by this experience and I have tremendous respect for the 

Inupiaq people who continue to live in this region following their subsistence traditions. 

Colville River Special Area 

As originally established, the Colville River Special Area encompassed 2.3 million 

acres and provided some of the most significant Arctic habitats for raptors.12 The 

majority of the lower river area supports the highest densities of raptors, passerines 

and moose on Alaska’s Arctic Slope. The Northeast NPR–A Record of Decision expanded the Colville River Special Area by 2.44 million acres to incorporate two 

miles on either side of two major tributaries of the Colville River—the Kikiakrorak 

and Kogosukruk rivers. The IAP expanded the purposes for which the Colville River 

Special Area was established to protect all raptors, rather than the original intent 

of protection for arctic peregrine falcons.13

66

14 NPRA/IAP FEIS vol 1. p. 365. 15 NPRA/IAP FEIS vol. 1 p. 22. 16Gale A. Norton, Secretary of the Interior, January 22, 2004, Northwest NPR–A IAP/Final 

EIS, Vol. 1, page II–8; and, Record of Decision, p. 20. The wilderness values of the NPR–A were 

well detailed in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska Task Force, 1978, National Petroleum 

Reserve in Alaska, Values and Resources Analysis, Wilderness Resources, U.S. Department of the 

Interior, National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, 105(c) Land Use Study, Study Report 2, section 

4. 17See Pub. L. 94–258, 90 Stat 304 (1976) (′′Any exploration within the Utukok River, the 

Teshekpuk Lake areas, and other areas designated by the Secretary of the Interior containing 

any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value, shall be 

conducted in a manner which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values to the 

extent consistent with the requirements of this Act for the exploration of the reserve.′′) 18Past presidential administrations as philosophically disparate as those of former President 

Jimmy Carter and former President George W. Bush have embraced the need for protection of 

these areas. The Carter administration established the Teshekpuk Lake, Utukok Uplands and 

Colville River Special Areas in 1977. The George W. Bush administration created Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area within the 2004 Record of Decision for the Northwest NPR–A plan.

Along the Colville River and the Etivluk River we spotted nesting raptors on the 

bluffs that flank these rivers every day. It was a thrill to see rough-legged hawks, 

gyrfalcons and arctic peregrine falcons on a regular basis. 

Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area 

Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area, as established in 2004 during the George W. 

Bush administration, encompasses approximately 97,000 acres and includes the lagoon, its barrier islands and an area 1 mile inland from the shore of the lagoon. 

It was designated for its high values for marine mammals, wilderness character, 

and notable primitive recreation opportunities, and is a rich ecosystem on the Arctic 

Slope with marine tidal flats, a unique feature in the Arctic.14

Peard Bay Special Area 

The IAP established the Peard Bay Special Area. The Peard Bay Special Area encompass 1.6 million acres to protect haul-out areas and nearshore waters for marine 

mammals and habitat for waterbird and shorebird breeding, molting, staging, and 

migration.15

These Special Area designations incorporate the principles of conservation biology, 

focusing on ecosystem and watershed integrity and protection, buffer zones around 

critical wildlife habitats, and protected corridors for movement of animals between 

diverse uplands and coastal areas or between seasonal areas of use. The designations are also based on the best available information regarding habitat and adaptation needs of wildlife and ecosystems that face dramatic shifts as the result of climate change. The designations also reflect the benefits for retaining wilderness values by leaving large ecosystems intact for wildlife and subsistence users.16 The current Special Area designations within the IAP are consistent with the intent of congress as provided for under the NPRPA. 

For the reasons noted above, Congress specifically recognized the Teshekpuk Lake 

and Utukok Uplands areas as warranting ‘‘maximum protection’’ when it enacted 

the National Petroleum Reserve Production Act in 1976.17 Under NPRPA, Congress 

clearly established that while energy development was an important reason for initial establishment of the reserve in 1923, it is now a purpose that must be balanced 

with ‘‘conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions’’ to ensure protection of the Reserve’s 

extraordinary ecological values and subsistence resources. Past presidential administrations, both Republican and Democrat, have embraced the need for protection of 

these Special Areas.18 The IAP continues this bi-partisan support for balanced management through an expanded Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok Uplands Special Area 

and the creation of the Peard Bay Special Area. The following is a summary of the 

Special Area designations within the Reserve: 

• In the 1976 NPRPA, congress recognized that Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok Uplands areas as warranting ‘‘maximum protection’’. • In 1977, Secretary of Interior Cecil Andrus designated three Special Areas within the Reserve—the Teshekpuk Lake, the Colville River and the Utukok River 

Uplands Special Areas. • Consistent with the 1998 Northeast Planning unit Record of the Decision, the 

Teshekpuk Lake and Colville River Special Areas were expanded. • Consistent with the 2004 Record of Decision for the Northwest NPR–A planning 

unit, the George W. Bush administration created the approximately 97,000 acre 

Kasegaluk Lagoon Special Area. • The IAP expanded the Teshekpuk Lake and Utukok River Uplands Special 

Areas and established the Peard Bay Special Area. 

67

19 42 U.S.C. § 6506a. 20During his May 14, 2011 Weekly Address, President Obama announced new plans to increase domestic oil production. He directed the Department of Interior to conduct annual lease 

sales in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. See: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/05/13/weekly-address-president-obama-announces-new-plans-increase-responsible-. 21 As of April 4 2013, there are 191 active lease tracts in the NPR–A. See: http://

www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/energy/npra_maps.Par.76062.File.dat/2012 

NPR-A Oil & Gas Leases Rpt 02-20-2013.pdf. 22 November 7, 2012 NPR–A lease sale bid recap. See: http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/

medialib/blm/ak/aktest/energy/2012K_NPR-A_Lease_Sale_Docs.Par.53369.File.pdf/

2012_NPR-9A_Lease_Sale_Bid_Recap.pdf. 

Oil and Gas Leasing & Exploration in the Reserve

Consistent with the Congressional requirement within NPRPA to ‘‘conduct an expeditious program of competitive leasing of oil and gas in the Reserve’’ 19 the BLM 

has conducted numerous oil and gas lease sales within the Reserve. The IAP opens 

potential oil and gas leasing for approximately 11.8 million acres within the Reserve, including 72 percent of the total recoverable oil reserves. 

Following President Obama’s directive in May of 2011 20 that annual oil and gas 

lease sales be conducted in the Reserve, BLM offered 3 million acres in December 

of 2011. That sale generated 17 winning bids covering more than 120,000 acres. Another lease sale on November 7, 2012, offered 4.5 million acres and received 14 winning bids on 160,088 total acres. There are now 191 authorized oil and gas leases 

in the Reserve, encompassing roughly 1.5 million acres.21 The following is a historic 

summary of the leasing program that has taken place in the Reserve: 

• There have been 12 lease offerings in the Reserve since 1982. • Over half of those lease sales were in the past decade and the vast majority 

of the 13.4 million acres within the Northeast and Northwest Planning areas 

have been offered for lease multiple times. • There have been six lease sales in the Northeast Planning Area alone (1999, 

2004, 2008, 2010, 2011 and 2012). • The most recent Reserve lease sale offering was conducted by the Obama Administration on November 7, 2012 and was the fifth lease sale in 6 years.

Consequently there has been ample opportunity for oil and gas exploration in the 

Reserve. 

Industry Interest in the Reserve

As a result of the 12 lease sales that have taken place since 1982 and the 5 that 

have taken place in the last 6 years, over 7 million acres have been leased across 

large portions of the Reserve. In conjunction with these sales, extensive surveys 

have been conducted, and dozens of exploration wells have been drilled. 

However, in the past several years, the trend has been for industry to relinquish 

leases as opposed to the purchase additional tracts within the Reserve. The November 7, 2012 lease sale generated very little interest from industry. Of the 398 tracts 

compromising roughly 4.5 million acres, only a total of 14 were purchased by 2 companies totaling a little over 160,000 acres.22

Standards for Future Development Within the Reserve

The IAP opens up 11.8 million acres of the Reserve as available for oil and gas 

leasing. As the BLM continues to move forward with lease sales in the Reserve, we 

believe that it is critical for the agency to ensure that future infrastructure is located and constructed in the least invasive manner possible to ensure the Reserve’s 

recognized values are protected. 

In particular, BLM should act to ensure that decisions about the location and construction of roads and other oil and gas related infrastructure are made pursuant 

to strong standards. Permanent roads in particular, are a concern, as they can result in a multitude of negative impacts, including destruction of habitat, disturbance 

of fish and wildlife, displacement of subsistence resources, and increased competition for those resources. Roadless development is now an accepted and viable option, 

used in many parts of the world including the sensitive tundra wetlands of the Arctic. 

During the planning process there was discussion and speculation regarding the 

potential construction of a western Arctic pipeline to extend across the Reserve to 

help facilitate oil and gas production in the Outer Continental Shelf. At the same 

time, the IAP EIS did not analyze impacts of pipeline scenarios. Any future proposal 

to locate and construct such a pipeline across the Reserve must, therefore, go 

through a separate permitting process, including an analysis under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 

68

H.R. 1964—The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act 

There are several elements to the draft legislative proposal under review by the 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources (H.R. 1964) ‘‘The National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’). These include provisions that would:

• Effectuate a fundamental change to existing policy in the NPRPA that would 

undermine the requirement for balance that Congress has appropriately established in law for management of the Reserve, the Nation’s single largest land 

management unit; 

• Require the Secretary of Interior put forward a new IAP, thus nullifying the 

IAP that was the result of multi-year planning process where BLM evaluated 

the values and uses of the reserve thus forcing DOI to duplicate their efforts 

and waste considerable resources; 

• Establish arbitrary fixed timelines for permit decisions and other authorizations 

regardless of their complexity; 

• Require the Department of the Interior to undertake a redundant study of oil 

and gas resources within the NPRA after having just recently completed such 

an analysis.

For all of the reasons discussed above, the provisions of this legislation are neither necessary nor beneficial. I urge the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to defer further action on the proposal. 

Conclusion

The Reserve, our Nation’s largest unit of public lands, is an extraordinary landscape that contains an exceptional array of internationally significant surface values. The recently completed IAP appropriately balances oil and gas leasing consistent with the long-standing Congressional recognition that the Reserve contains 

more than just oil and gas. Congress has properly required that oil and gas development in the Reserve should proceed in a manner that balances energy development 

with other public interests, specifically the protection and conservation of the Reserve’s Special Areas and exceptional biological resources. The IAP reflects this intent. 

As future development is considered there are important issues of national and 

local interest regarding where and how any such development is undertaken. Given 

the immense size of the Reserve, balance can be achieved between development and 

protection of the Reserve’s Special Areas, which contain extraordinary surface values. 

The DOI is to be commended for adopting a very fair and balanced approach to 

resource development and protection of the Special Areas in the Reserve through 

the approved IAP in concert with the law. 

Mr. LAMBORN. You are very welcome. Thanks for being here. 

Mr. Spehar. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. SPEHAR, FORMER MAYOR, GRAND 

JUNCTION, COLORADO 

Mr. SPEHAR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be 

here in front of my son’s Congressman and my own Congressman, 

and I thank you for the invitation. I am pleased to be here also, 

because energy jobs are important in my personal, professional, 

and public lives. Coal mining brought my great-grandfathers to 

western Colorado six generations ago. I have owned small businesses in both boom and bust cycles in my home town of Grand 

Junction, Colorado. I also helped govern my community as a county 

commissioner, city councilman, and mayor in both good times and 

bad. 

I have worked hard to create good jobs, as a former member of 

the Colorado Economic Development Commission, and the past 

board member of our local economic development organization. And 

I have worked with other communities as a former President of the 

Colorado Municipal League and a past board member of Associated 

69

Governments of Northwest Colorado, an epicenter of energy development in the West. 

What have I learned that is important to today’s discussion of 

H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394? First, take care of jobs you already have. 

Next, quality of life ultimately trumps everything else in job recruitment. Third, you can’t sustain or develop jobs where markets 

don’t support them. And, finally, never put all of your eggs in one 

basket. 

H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394 create issues in each of those areas. 

They seem to prioritize energy development over other uses of our 

public lands, upending the multiple-use philosophy. That threatens 

jobs in agriculture, tourism, and outdoor recreation, hunting and 

fishing, and other existing multi-million-dollar economic drivers 

that also rely on our Federal lands. 

We appreciate every good job where I come from, but have 

learned the hard way about the dangers of putting most of our eggs 

in the energy basket. We have experienced four significant boom 

and bust cycles in my lifetime, and I have personally witnessed 

three of those cycles. As a result, communities in Mesa County are 

focused on diversifying our economy. 

For western Colorado, conservation has been a critical economic 

tool and, in Federal policy, must be placed on equal ground with 

energy development to have long-term sustainable economic 

growth. One of our significant international manufacturers was introduced to Grand Junction when the owners came to recreate. 

That reinforces to me that quality of life and access to public lands 

are important economic tools. 

Members of my own family are among ranchers holding public 

land grazing leases. Water originating on public land irrigates feed 

crops and sweet corn, wine grapes and fruit trees, and supports significant tourism. Those important job generators rely on public 

lands and should not be relegated below energy development in the 

management of those lands. 

H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394 would substitute Federal Government 

mandates for marketplace realities. The major constraints on production on public lands result from low prices for dry natural gas. 

The Director of the Energy Information Administration put it this 

way recently. He said, ‘‘Liquids-rich oil shale resources, where we 

are seeing rapid increases in production, are found largely outside 

of Federal lands.’’

We cannot legislate geology. We cannot force companies to shift 

their focus from the booming fields of the Bakken in North Dakota, 

or from mostly private lands in the Eastern United States to less 

profitable Federal lands in the West. Both H.R. 1965 and H.R. 

1394 also presume too few drilling permits on Federal lands and 

too little public land available for leasing. But the U.S. Bureau of 

Land Management reports that the industry has more than 7,000 

permits on public lands that are currently not utilized, also more 

than 26 million offshore acres and more than 20 million onshore 

acres that are currently leased but idle. 

Unfortunately, the legislation under consideration today would 

roll back the progress already being felt from 2010 leasing reforms 

which have reduced protests and created more efficient processes. 

70

H.R. 1965 forces speculative commercial oil shale leasing in the 

absence of confirmed research demonstrating successful technologies. Mandates and quotas do not offer taxpayers either the 

best market-based financial return for the use of their public lands, 

nor the best assurances that necessary protections for water, air, 

wildlife, and communities are in place. That is why three successive State administrations in Colorado, both Republican and Democrat, have supported requiring completion of RD&D projects prior 

to commercial leasing. 

Our current Governor put it this way when the recent Department of the Interior decision was announced. ‘‘We need to be thorough and have a full understanding of potential impacts to the environment and our community,’’ Governor Hickenlooper said, ‘‘before we take steps toward large-scale commercial leasing of oil 

shale.’’

Western Colorado learned hard lessons about the dangers of gov- ernment intervention when, despite a $1.2 billion loan guarantee 

by the Reagan Administration, the last oil shale boom went bust 

on Black Sunday in May of 1982. Some local communities only recently paid off bond debt from infrastructure for sewer and water 

built to support that boom. 

My purpose is not to argue against a robust and successful oil 

and energy industry; we all want good jobs, energy independence, 

and a more certain future. But it is important to remember the lessons of the past. We can do better. Thank you for your time and 

consideration. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spehar follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES G. SPEHAR, FORMER MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL

MEMBER, GRAND JUNCTION, COLORADO, PAST PRESIDENT, COLORADO MUNICIPAL

LEAGUE, FORMER MESA COUNTY (COLORADO) COMMISSIONER

H.R. 1965—FEDERAL LANDS, JOBS AND ENERGY SECURITY ACT AND H.R. 1394—PLANNING

FOR AMERICAN ENERGY ACT OF 2013

This written submission and my oral comments before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources on the above referenced legislation are informed by many different perspectives. 

Energy extraction, coal mining, brought my great grandfathers from Eastern Europe to western Colorado, six generations ago. I have operated small businesses in 

both boom and bust energy industry cycles in my hometown of Grand Junction, CO, 

and have helped govern my community, which serves as the headquarters for much 

of the energy development in northwest Colorado, in both good economic times and 

bad as a county commissioner and city councilman and mayor. I have learned from 

other Colorado communities as a board member and past president of the Colorado 

Municipal League as well as on the board of directors of Associated Governments 

of northwest Colorado. 

My work as a former member of the Colorado Economic Development Commission 

and helping direct local economic development efforts as a past board member of 

the Mesa County Economic Development Commission (now the Grand Junction Economic Partnership) reinforced the importance of both job creation and retention. 

For nearly two decades, I have done consulting work on growth, energy, economic 

development, and workforce issues with local governments, their regional associations, State agencies, multi-national energy companies and others. I assisted one of 

my early clients, Shell, with community outreach in early stages of their oil shale 

effort prior to the company becoming one of the original holders of multiple research 

and development leases on Federal lands. 

It is because of that varied background that I understand and identify with the 

efforts of Representative Tipton and Representative Lamborn in their focus on jobs, 

energy security and the need to plan aggressively for energy development. But my 

experiences also prompt me to urge caution as the subcommittee considers the approaches to these important issues as contained in H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394. 

71

In general, these bills appear to prioritize energy development over other uses of 

our public lands, upending the multiple use philosophy and potentially threatening 

other important local jobs in agriculture, tourism and outdoor recreation, hunting 

and fishing and other multi-million dollar economic drivers that also rely on Federal 

lands. The risk is that we ultimately end up swapping an existing job in historic 

and less cyclical industries for a new one in an industry known for uncertainty, thus 

creating a less stable long term local economy. 

In western Colorado, the ever-increasing presence of recreation based jobs bolsters 

the economy. Just as importantly, small businesses, large companies and skilled 

workers call western Colorado home because of the quality of life provided by access 

to nearby public lands. Arbitrary leasing quotas would limit multiple uses in favor 

of the boom and bust nature of extractive industries. 

It is also true that public land policies of the current administration have not favored protection over development. President Obama and President George W. Bush 

have overseen more acres leased for development than have been conserved and the 

112th Congress just last year became the first Congress since World War II not to 

pass a single piece of land conservation legislation. 

Since record keeping began by the BLM, more than 95 million acres have been 

leased for oil and gas development while only 25 million acres have been protected. 

Balance for the many diverse users that underpin the West’s economies must be 

considered in bills such as those being considered today. 

H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394 also seem to substitute Federal Government requirements for marketplace realities. Right now, the only major constraints on oil and 

gas production on Federal lands are the result of low commodity prices and the fact 

that, as Energy Information Administration Director Adam Sieminski testified before the Energy and Commerce Committee last year, rapidly liquids-rich shale 

where we resources where we are seeing rapid increases in production are found 

largely outside of Federal lands. 

Like it or not, we cannot legislate geology, nor can we force companies to shift 

their focus to less productive and less profitable Federal lands. 

Specific to H.R. 1394, requiring the Department of the Interior to develop a ‘‘domestic strategic production objective’’ for onshore energy production and then ‘‘take 

all necessary actions’’ to meet that objective could, in a time when supplies are increasing or demand is static, force continuing or perhaps even increasing production 

leaving local communities vulnerable to chocks from market collapses in those 

economies, giving a false sense of direction to the future development of those resources and resulting in additional exports that might ultimately threaten rather 

than assure domestic energy security. 

Certainly subcommittee members are aware that, despite efforts to increase domestic energy production and decrease reliance on imported energy supplies, one of 

our Nation’s fastest growing exports is finished fuel products. U.S. exports of all finished fuels have more than doubled since 2006, averaging 107 million gallons per 

day for the first 8 months of 2012 and removing from the domestic market gasoline 

and diesel that might otherwise result in lower pump prices and reduced dependence on foreign imports. According to the Energy Department, the United States is 

a now a net exporter of fuel for the first time since 1949, 

Just last Friday, May 17, acknowledging a glut of natural gas as a result of increased domestic production, the Department of Energy gave permission for a terminal in Freeport, Texas, that was originally built to handle imports of liquid natural gas to instead ship LNG to Japan. Fourteen other domestic terminals are reportedly seeking export permits. If all are approved, their total capacity would be 

28.7 billion cubic feet per day according to a Barclays’s report. 

That means the United States could export more than 40 percent of the 70.1 billion cubic feet per day the Energy Information Administration estimates will be produced by domestic gas wells in 2014. 

All of which begs the question of whether it is wise to attempt to force increased 

energy production on Federal lands when much of that product will flow overseas, 

creating short term economic gain but reducing domestic supplies, increasing consumer costs at home and diminishing prospects for U.S. energy independence. 

Western Colorado learned the hard way about the dangers of government intervention without having the market solidly on your side when billion dollar loan 

guarantees and promises of a booming work force came crashing down on ‘‘Black 

Sunday’’ in May 1982, leaving communities liable for local infrastructure costs, some 

of which have only recently been paid off. 

Both H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394 also appear to presume too few necessary drilling 

permits on Federal lands and too little public land available to be leased for energy 

development. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management reports that the industry has 

accumulated more than 7,000 permits on public lands that are currently not being 

72

utilized and more than 26 million offshore acres and more than 20 million onshore 

acres that are currently leased but idle. 

A Recent Congressional Research Service Report which gained media attention 

explained the Federal permitting question as follows: ‘‘Some critics of this lengthy 

timeframe highlight the relatively speedy process for permit processing on private 

lands. State agencies permit drilling activity on private lands within their State, 

with some approving permits within 10 business days of submission. But oftentimes, 

some surface management issues are negotiated between the oil producer and the 

individual land/mineral owner. A private versus Federal permitting regime does not 

lend itself to an ‘‘apples to apples’’ comparison.’’

That same report questions the need for Federal policies like the bills under consideration today stating, ‘‘There is however, continued interest among some in Congress to open more Federal lands for oil and gas development and increase the 

speed of the permitting process. But having more lands accessible may not translate 

into higher levels of production on Federal lands, as industry seeks out the most 

promising prospects and highest returns.’’

The legislation under consideration today, I would assume, is meant to make the 

system more efficient. Yet the practical implications of many of the provisions proposed would have the opposite effect. In western Colorado, a number of recent leasing proposals have drawn controversy not from environmentalists but by interests 

ranging from farmers and ranchers to municipal water providers, Republican county 

commissioners and even archeological concerns. Proposals put forth by the Colorado 

BLM Director have even included leasing a local town dam, and in areas where new 

forms of organic farming exist, sparked by the demand for organic produce that the 

market has called for in recent years, that didn’t exist 30 years ago when the original Resource Management Plan was written. 

Colorado has been woefully behind other States, even Utah and Wyoming, in instituting many of the leasing reforms developed in 2010. These reforms have been 

driving down protests and making for a more efficient and shorter process for industry elsewhere in the country, but because Colorado hasn’t moved forward with tools 

such as Master Leasing Plans, the process has remained troubled and inefficient for 

all parties involved. Unfortunately, the legislation under consideration today would 

roll back the progress already being felt by the 2010 leasing reforms. 

According to the BLM ‘‘The percentage of BLM leases protested declined again in 

fiscal year 2012, which ended Sept. 30, continuing a trend that began in 2009. Protests were lodged on fewer than 18 percent of the 2,064 parcels offered for sale during FY 2012, the lowest percentage since FY 2003, when the filing of protests began 

to accelerate. Protests, which can cause delays, court battles and increase development costs, reached a high of more than 47 percent in 2009. In response to this gridlock, in May 2010, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar undertook reforms to the leasing 

program that have resulted in fewer protests.’’

It is also worth asking if forced leasing, either by requiring specific percentages 

of land to be leased for drilling or by speculatively leasing Federal land for oil shale 

development in the absence of confirmed research demonstrating successful technologies, offers taxpayers either the best market-based financial return for use of 

their public lands or the best assurance necessary protections are in place. 

While efficiency ought to be the goal of all of us who have been involved in government at every level and a reasonable expectation on the part of those we serve, 

getting things done as quickly at the lowest cost should not come at the expense 

of public safety, environmental responsibility or by shifting the burden to existing 

local taxpayers for infrastructure and services required by industry. 

For many years, the avowed goal for research, development and demonstration 

projects in the oil shale industry, as repeatedly stated by industry leaders, has been 

to create technologies and processes that are environmentally responsible, socially 

acceptable and economically sustainable. There has also been an expressed desire 

for certainty that, if successful in meeting those stated goals, they will be allowed 

to proceed with profitable production. 

Let me suggest that environmental responsibility, social acceptability, economic 

sustainability and certainty regarding infrastructure and service expectations are 

just as important for the communities that host energy industries. In some important respects, H.R. 1965 would hinder achievement of those goals. 

Merely increasing the speed does not assure the journey will be successful. Fasttracking commercial leasing for oil shale development is problematic for several reasons. 

It ignores the fact that most major companies involved in the research, development and demonstration projects continue to say a commercial production is 7–10 

years in the future, something they’ve been saying ever since I first began my own 

oil shale work more than 15 years ago. 

73

It ignores the fact that technical issues, not lack of availability of land or burdensome regulations, have caused more than a year’s worth of delay in firing up the 

heaters for the AMSO/Total research, development and demonstration project in 

northwest Colorado. 

It does not recognized that in Utah, where companies such as Red Leaf and Enefit 

intend to use modern versions of older mining and retorting technologies, those companies are several years away from production despite having access to State, Federal and private lands sufficient to sustain their planned operations for many decades. 

That is also true in Colorado, where newer in situ processes are being tested. Anticipated conversion of acreages available to Colorado RD&D lessees who might 

eventually demonstrate successful technologies will also allow profitable long term 

operations while creating market based cost structures for additional leasing, providing more realistic returns to taxpayers for minerals extracted from public lands. 

H.R. 1965 fails to acknowledge that easier opportunities using existing technologies such as hydraulic fracturing have brought new shale oil and shale gas, 

products entirely different from oil shale, into the market, impacting market supplies and prices and therefore making the economics of heating rock to produce liquid that must then be refined into usable oil even more difficult. 

Speculatively leasing large tracts of land for commercial oil shale development 

while at the same time short-circuiting the review process and limiting public participation in it presumes supposed benefits before viable technologies assure success 

while ignoring the necessity of dealing proactively with impacts. 

On the ground, the reality is that local communities must provide services and 

infrastructure to support oil shale development, impacts which peak during the construction and start up phases long before revenues from production royalties and 

property taxes on new facilities kick in. That leaves existing local taxpayers and 

their governments on the hook absent some mechanism for up-front assistance. 

Though the last oil shale boom-bust cycle demonstrated the need for that sort of 

help, there is no mechanism in H.R. 1965 to provide for advance payments against 

future royalties, lease bonus payments, or other methods of assisting local governments in hosting a significant start up industry in the 3–5 years before that industry begins to pay its own way. 

Nor is there any mechanism to do as community leaders from northwest Colorado 

have been requesting since 2009 and commission a study of the potential cumulative 

impacts of imposing a commercial oil shale industry on top of existing energy and 

energy-supporting industries that include natural gas exploration, development and 

processing as well as pipeline construction, coal mining and power generation. Absent such a pro-active study, it appears that consideration of these impacts will be 

relegated to a shortened and much-restricted analysis under H.R. 1965 with reduced 

opportunity for public participation. 

It is also unfortunate that H.R. 1965 would revert the oil shale regulatory scheme 

back to the rules of the Bush Administration, subverting a years-long review now 

in the final stages of resolution. The BLM’s own 2008 Programmatic Environmental 

Impact Statement (PEIS) acknowledges the lack of then-current information available regarding many issues. Subsequent analysis has brought an improved understanding in many areas and is reflected in the updated PEIS and proposed rules 

and regulations. 

Of particular concern is the royalty structure contained in the 2005 Energy Policy 

Act, cutting initial oil shale royalty rates by more than half. Half of royalty payments are returned to States and local governments where the activity occurs. Reducing those rates diminishes the financial ability of local communities to support 

infrastructure and services a new industry finds necessary to create and sustain 

jobs. 

At a minimum, royalty rates for oil shale should equal the 12.5 percent charged 

for other minerals on Federal lands. Even then, the partial distribution of those assessments on production back to State and local governments will come 3–5 years 

after they have faced increased infrastructure and service costs associated with the 

heaviest impacts, which occur during the construction and start-up phases. Anything less than 12.5 percent exacerbates that problem, unreasonably burdens current taxpayers and could have a potential negative impact on existing sustaining 

industries. 

We are all in favor of good jobs, energy independence and a more promising future. But it is important to remember the lessons of the past, when haste and Federal pressures fostered the oil shale boom that ended with the economically disastrous ‘‘Black Sunday’’ bust in May of 1982. 

That is why the administrations of three Colorado governors, both Democrat and 

Republican, have argued at home and here in Washington as the 2005 Energy PolVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:38 Jun 17, 2014 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 X:\01ENER~1\01MY22~1\5-22-1~1\81285.TXT MARK
74

icy Act and the 2008–2009 oil shale leasing rules were being promulgated, for a deliberate research and development-based process of determining the ultimate viability of oil shale development. That strategy is not apparent in H.R. 1965. 

The purpose of my oral and written testimony is not to argue against a robust 

and successful energy industry, but only to make certain that inevitable impacts 

and community needs are given equal consideration as we move forward. I thank 

you for inviting me and for your time and consideration. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, I want to thank all of you for being here, and 

for your testimony. 

And for Ms. Miller and Mr. Spehar, I like the fact that you mentioned balance. That is what we are here for, to try to strike the 

right balance. I think, if we are careful, we can do it all. We can 

recreate, we can preserve, but we can use resources to supply 

energy to help our economy if we are careful and smart in how we 

do it. So, I also think this pendulum has swung too far toward no 

production and slowing production down. That is why my bill and 

some of the other bills are before us today. 

But let me turn to you, Mr. Glenn. And you have come a long 

ways also, I appreciate that. And you, Ms. Miller, have come a long 

ways, 5,000 miles, that is a long set of airplane flights. 

Mr. Glenn, you said that in drafting the final IAP there was insufficient meaningful consultation by the BLM with native land 

owners and municipalities after the record of decision had been authored. Can you elaborate on why this was insufficient, in your 

opinion? 

Mr. GLENN. Sure, thank you. There are millions of acres of land 

owned by the village corporations and the regional corporation. We 

don’t have Indian reservations in Alaska. Instead, Congress has established these corporations, and each of us who are Native Alaskans are members, or shareholders of the corporations. They are 

land owners within the NPR–A. 

And then there are cities, city councils, tribal councils, and then 

our municipality, the real lion of residents, quality of life services, 

is the North Slope Borough. And you heard from the mayor earlier. 

None of these groups were sufficiently consulted with the BLM before the record of decision was created. 

Now, to their credit, since the record of decision they have promoted the idea of a working group in NPR–A that includes all of 

those groups that I just mentioned. It is just a shame that rubric 

was not created before the record of decision was made. So we 

think they were selective in who they talked to, and they didn’t 

talk to native land owners or municipalities. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Mr. Ekstrom, I am going to ask 

you a question I have asked many other witnesses in similar hearings in the past. You describe how to get a permit on Federal service lands takes almost 300 days, 298 days, and yet it is a lot better 

dealing with States, with State land or States with private land. 

Can you explain why there is such a difference? 

Mr. EKSTROM. Mr. Chairman, I can. The State regulators are 

much closer to their constituents than Federal regulators, and they 

understand and advocate for the economic value that accrues to the 

State when the permit is issued, and when the development occurs. 

Frequently, with the overlay of Federal permit in addition to a 

State permit being required, you have stipulations and you have 

75

kind of a one-size-fits-all mentality that requires an incredible 

amount of satisfying bureaucracy that typically does not apply to 

a specific area within perhaps North Dakota or Colorado. 

The specific area I referred to on my map is the Pawnee Grasslands, which is largely developed and has a lot of producing property on it. And we are talking about a permit that might be for 40 

acres that is inside of a drilling unit. Why that takes so long, I am 

not aware. But we suspect that part of it has to do with the culture 

within the organization that we have applied for the permit to. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Also, as a follow-up, if the Federal process were 

streamlined, as the legislation would lead to, would there be more 

interest in exploring and developing energy on Federal lands, 

which I believe would lead to more income to the Treasury and a 

boost to the economy? 

Mr. EKSTROM. Mr. Chairman, there is no question about that. 

Our mandate internally at the organization which employs me is 

that we will avoid Federal acreage as much as possible, due to 

these unseemly delays that do not employ capital effectively. Our 

capital, our expenditures, seek their most efficient use. And so, the 

Federal acreage is not an efficient use, so it is naturally drawn to 

State and private acreage instead. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK, thank you. Representative Holt? 

Dr. HOLT. Thanks. Mr. Spehar? 

Mr. SPEHAR. Yes. 

Dr. HOLT. First, Mr. Lamborn previously introduced a bill similar to H.R. 1965 that ensured that the percentage of fees collected 

for wind and solar energy right-of-way authorizations would be 

used ‘‘to facilitate the processing of wind energy and solar energy 

permit applications on BLM lands.’’ In other words, the money collected would be used for renewable energy permitting. 

In the current version, H.R. 1965, as introduced, Section 112 

says that the revenues would be used by Interior specifically—it no 

longer says that the revenues would be used specifically for this 

permitting. What do you think about that change? 

Mr. SPEHAR. Well, obviously, Congressman Holt, there needs to 

be sufficient funding to assure that these permits and applications 

are processed in a timely manner. All of us, whatever level of government, want to see efficiency and all of that. 

My concern about royalty rates and all of that in the legislation 

is that they anticipate reducing royalty rates to encourage production. The problem with that is that half of those royalties are supposed to flow back to State and local governments, to allow them 

to deal with the impacts of the production. And discounting those 

royalty rates takes money out of the hands of the local governments and the State governments. It is intended to help feed the 

beast, if you will. The——

Dr. HOLT. But for the royalties that go back to the BLM, you 

don’t particularly advocate that they be used, then, for renewables? 

Mr. SPEHAR. I really haven’t looked deeply into that issue. 

Dr. HOLT. OK, thanks. Ms. Miller, you note in your testimony 

that more than three decades ago Congress required that the Secretary assume responsibility for protecting significant subsistence, 

recreational, fish, wildlife, or historical or scenic values. Now, of 

course, what Congress does Congress can undo. And I suppose we 

76

could absolve the Secretary from that responsibility to protect significant recreational fish, wildlife, and historical values. 

But recognizing that still stands, do you think that H.R. 1964 

would undermine that decades-old requirement to balance energy 

development with environmental protection, historic preservation, 

recreational, and other use——

Ms. MILLER. I do. I think it——

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. In the NPR–A? 

Ms. MILLER. I do think it undermines it from the standpoint that 

the Department of the Interior just spent 21⁄2 years, through a public process involving 400,000 comments—I attended the scoping 

hearings in Alaska, I provided written testimony for the public 

hearings on the proposed alternatives. When I went to the scoping 

hearing there were 50 people in the room that all offered comments 

about this plan. They worked very hard at this, as far as getting 

input from Alaskans. 

I also would add, too, that there are 40 villages in Northern Alaska and Interior Alaska that depend on the Western Arctic caribou 

herd, and this is a herd that numbers about 350,000. It has a 

range that is the size of Montana. We are talking a huge area. So 

there are many villages that depend on this herd for a subsistence 

harvest resource. And those villages, representatives from many of 

those villages made up what was called the Western Arctic Caribou 

Herd Working Group, and they made recommendations to the 

BLM. They also passed 30 different resolutions reflecting 90 communities that supported the recommendations in the integrated activity plan, supporting the protection of the Utikok special area for 

the caribou, for the nursery grounds, supporting Teshekpuk Lake, 

which is also important for the Teshekpuk caribou herd for——

Dr. HOLT. And specifically with this language, do you think it 

undermines the Secretary’s responsibility——

Ms. MILLER. Well, it——

Dr. HOLT [continuing]. That we gave——

Ms. MILLER [continuing]. Clearly undermines it. It——

Dr. HOLT. Secretary——

Ms. MILLER [continuing]. Throws out a good, balanced, 50/50 

plan, which provides 11.8 million acres open for oil and gas leasing, 

or 72 percent of the oil resources would be available to industry to 

extract, 11 million acres would be protected. And these are the 

most sensitive, biologically important lands, these special areas in 

the Reserve. One of them, the Kasegaluk Lagoon, actually was established under George W. Bush, under his Administration. 

The other four, extremely important habitat for caribou, for birds 

that come from six different continents if you go throughout the 

Reserve, grizzly bears—we are talking a rich land. And the archeological values, there is no place like the Reserve in terms of ancient 

history of indigenous people, the very first people that——

Dr. HOLT. Thank you for coming all this way and presenting your 

good testimony. 

Ms. MILLER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. Representative Tipton? 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to particularly welcome two Coloradoans. And one in particular out of 

our district, Mr. Spehar. Thanks for being here. 

77

I did want to be able to clarify one point. In page two of your 

testimony in reference to H.R. 1965 and 1934, you state that the 

legislation seems to prioritize energy development over other missions under the BLM. Can you point in the bill, H.R. 1394, where 

it prioritizes? 

Mr. SPEHAR. Without digging into the piece of legislation here, 

I think in my mind, Congressman Tipton, the tone of it seems to 

elevate energy development above some of these other important 

economic drivers that we have. I am certain that is not your intent, 

and I——

Mr. TIPTON. It is not. The good news of legislation is if you don’t 

prioritize it, it is not there. And if we do look—and I had pointed 

out to Ms. Connell, and it is just really for informational purposes, 

in Section 2(a)1 of the bill we specifically note that this is going to 

be a balanced approach, we do not circumvent any of the FLPMA 

process or the balanced approach for the BLM. It is simply to be 

able to responsibly develop these resources and to be able to get 

people back to work in our area. And coming out of Grand Junction, one of the highest unemployment rates in our district and in 

our State, I know you understand the importance of that. 

So, Mr. Ekstrom, I would like to be able to talk to you, because 

you had talked really about jobs and responsible development of 

these resources. We have colleges right now that are graduating 

students that are now able to look for work. Just how important 

is accessing and responsibly developing these resources? How important is this to job creation? 

Mr. EKSTROM. Mr. Chairman, I believe it is fundamental to job 

creation. We have had this experience in North Dakota and dramatically demonstrated, we have a National Energy Center of Excellence established at Bismark State College. We have had a Department of Petroleum Engineering established at the University of 

North Dakota. The first graduates are coming out of there. They 

were recruited 2 years previous, when they were enrolled in this 

program. They were encouraged to bring their fellows with them. 

The University of North Dakota now has approximately 40 enrollees in petroleum engineering, where the program did not exist 5 

years ago. So it is fundamental. 

In addition, what we are seeing is certificated employees coming 

out of the Bismark State College, 2-year certificates, associate degrees that are technically adept and technically trained to do the 

jobs that we have in the field. They are hired immediately. We 

have an unemployment rate that is effectively zero unemployment 

in North Dakota. The official number is somewhere around 2 percent. By promoting and advocating this development within the 

country in a reasonable and responsible way, we are able to put to 

work anyone who wishes to work. With the ability to pass a drug 

test and possession of a valid driver’s license, you can get a job in 

oil and gas. 

Mr. TIPTON. So, do you think that a comprehensive, responsible, 

all-of-the-above energy plan that is laid out in H.R. 1394, is that 

going to be able to help put people back to work when we need jobs 

in this country? 

Mr. EKSTROM. Mr. Chairman, without question it will dramatically improve the job outlook in this country. 

78

Mr. TIPTON. These are good-paying jobs. I think that oil and gas industry, the average mean wage is $92,000. You think a few college graduates might like that? 

Mr. EKSTROM. The professional wage is approximately that. 

Those are graduates from the Colorado School of Mines. The average wage for all workers in oil and gas in the Intermountain West 

is approximately $65,000. 

Mr. TIPTON. Good jobs. 

Mr. EKSTROM. Yes. 

Mr. TIPTON. One thing I think we are all concerned about when 

we fill up at the gas pump, when we are trying to pay our bills at 

home, is the idea of what the cost is of the fuels that we are paying 

for. Is it a false assumption to assume that if we are creating this 

energy on American soil, even though we are part of the global 

economy, that we wouldn’t see prices actually drop in this country? 

Mr. EKSTROM. Representative Tipton, there is no question about 

that. A dramatic increase in supply generally leads to a dramatic 

decline in price. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. LAMBORN. OK. I want to thank the witnesses for being here 

and for giving your testimony. Members of the Committee may 

have additional questions for the record, and I would ask that you 

respond to these in writing. 

Before we adjourn, I want to ask you——

Dr. HOLT. Before you adjourn, may I ask for a colloquy with the 

gentleman from Colorado? 

Mr. LAMBORN. Can you both do that after we adjourn, just to 

each other? 

Dr. HOLT. I thought it would be good to have it on the record. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I have got some deadlines here. Sorry about that. 

Mr. TIPTON. But I would be happy to visit with you any time. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I would ask unanimous consent that we also enter 

into the hearing record a letter from the Wilderness Society dated 

today, May 22. 

If there is no objection? 

[The lettter submitted for the record by Mr. Lamborn follows:]

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DOUG LAMBORN FROM

THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

MAY 22, 2013. 

The Honorable DOUG LAMBORN, Chairman, 

Subcommittee on Energy & Minerals, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515.

The Honorable RUSH HOLT, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy & Minerals, 

Committee on Natural Resources, 

U.S. House of Representatives, 

Washington, DC 20515.

DEAR CHAIRMAN LAMBORN AND RANKING MEMBER HOLT:

The Wilderness Society respectfully requests that this letter regarding: H.R. 1964, 

the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve Alaska Access Act’’; H.R. 1965, the ‘‘Federal Lands 

Jobs and Energy Security Act’’; and, H.R. 1394, the ‘‘Planning for American Energy 

Act of 2013’’ be included in the May 22, 2013, Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals hearing record regarding these three bills. 

79

Introduction

As with almost identical proposals considered by this Subcommittee last year, 

these three bills are ‘‘solutions in search of a problem.’’ They are based upon at least 

three false premises: first, that current Federal policies are unnecessarily hindering 

oil and gas development on onshore Federal lands; secondly, that passage of these 

bills will create significant numbers of jobs; and third, passage will somehow lower 

the price of gas and oil to consumers. None of these premises are true. 

Today, the domestic oil and gas industry is thriving. The industry controls Federal leases on over 37 million acres of Federal public lands; they have operations 

on over 12 million acres of Federal onshore leases; two-thirds of all onshore acres 

leased remain inactive despite the increase in overall production; there are over 

96,000 producing oil and natural gas wells on our public lands; thousands of Federal 

drilling permits are approved each year; and though the industry has acquired thousands of Federal drilling permits over the past several years, they are sitting on 

nearly 7,000 approved Federal drilling permits that, for reasons known only to 

itself, it is not using. And, while domestic natural gas prices are at historic lows, 

the persistent high price of gasoline is determined by world oil market dynamics, 

not by how much Federal land is made available for leasing, or by how many Federal drilling permits are issued in each year. 

Though none of these bills will result in lower energy prices for consumers, if 

passed they would increase the risk of harm to other natural resource values from 

oil and gas operations on Federal lands, reduce the opportunities for the public to 

participate in oil and gas management decisions, and make oil and gas extraction 

activities the de facto highest priority use of Federal public lands. They would repeal the recent reforms in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) oil and gas 

leasing and development policies. These reforms were adopted to create more certainty about where leasing and development is appropriate on the public lands, and 

were badly needed to restore a semblance of balance between the BLM’s dual responsibilities to facilitate the careful development of our publicly-owned oil and gas 

resources, and to protect the multitude other natural resource and environmental 

values that these lands harbor. 

Additionally, one of the bills—H.R. 1965—minimizes, eliminates and penalizes 

public participation in leasing and drilling decisions on our public lands, thereby undermining the legitimacy of a decision-making process that gives the owners of 

these lands—the public—the right to participate in decisions about how our public 

lands are managed. If passed, these bills would turn us back to the days when energy policy was dominated solely by oil and gas development instead of an approach 

which recognizes that multiple use requirements needed to accommodate balance 

and resolve competing energy, conservation, and recreational values of our public 

lands. 

There is simply no reason for Congress to place its thumb on the scale to advantage one user of our public lands—the oil and gas industry—over all others, as these 

bills would do. Our specific comment’s on the three bills follows. 

H.R. 1964

We oppose passage of H.R. 1964 for the reasons set forth below. 

Sec. 5 of the bill would nullify the existing record of decision, integrated activity 

plan (IAP), and environmental impact statement (EIS) and give the Secretary of the 

Interior 6 months to come up with a new IAP/EIS that promotes ‘‘maximum development of oil and gas resources.’’ The new IAP/EIS would be required to select one 

of the alternatives analyzed but not selected in the 2012 EIS, any of which would 

result in an additional loss of 20–33 percent of high-value caribou calving habitat. 

In other words, the bill seeks to legislate the EIS’s outcome. 

The 2012 plan was based on sound scientific research that analyzed wildlife distribution and uses of the important habitat within the NPRA, as well as subsistence 

use by numerous Native communities. The plan’s protective measures were informed by over 400,000 comments from scientists, conservation groups, and Native 

communities. The plan balances conservation and development interests, and allows 

for oil and gas leasing on 11.8 million acres containing 72 percent of NPR–A’s economically recoverable oil. 

Sec. 3 would unnecessarily require the Secretary to hold at least one lease sale 

annually (from 2013 to 2023) in areas of NPRA most likely to produce commercial 

quantities of oil and natural gas. This is an unnecessary provision as President 

Obama directed the Department of the Interior in 2011 to hold annual lease sales 

within the NPRA. 

Sec. 4(a) of the bill would require Federal agencies to ‘‘facilitate and ensure permits’’ for all surface development activities, including for the construction of pipelines and roads. Sec. 4(c) would require the Secretary of the Interior to submit to 

80

1 E.g., 42 U.S.C. 6504(a) (‘‘Any exploration within the Utukok River, the Teshekpuk Lake 

areas, and other areas designated by the Secretary of the Interior containing any significant 

subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value, shall be conducted in 

a manner which will assure the maximum protection of such surface values to the extent consistent with the requirements of this act for the exploration of the reserve.’’); 42 U.S.C. 6506a(b) 

(‘‘Activities undertaken pursuant to this act shall include or provide for such conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions as the Secretary deems necessary or appropriate to mitigate reasonably 

foreseeable and significantly adverse effects on the surface resources of the National Petroleum 

Reserve in Alaska.’’). 2 USGS Economic Analysis Updated for the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska (NPRA) 

(May 4, 2011), available at http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=2784. 

Congress a plan providing for rights-of-way for ‘‘pipeline, road, and any other surface infrastructure that may be necessary’’ to ensure that ‘‘all leasable tracts in the 

Reserve are within 25 miles of an approved road and pipeline right-of-way.’’

The bill presumes that roads are required for NPRA development including alongside transmission pipelines. There are no roads alongside several long-distance 

transmission pipelines on the North Slope, nor are roads used to access every North 

Slope oil and gas prospect. 

Sec. 4(b) would require permits for roads and pipelines associated with a project 

to be issued within 60 days of approving a permit to drill, and within 6 months of 

the application for the permit to drill. Sec. 7(2)(B) appears to require all permits

to be issued within 60 days of the submission of an application. Based on the language of Sec. 7, it is not clear whether the Secretary would have authority to deny 

a permit application. Regardless, 60 days is not enough time to assess the permanent impacts on the landscape and wildlife populations associated with a proposed 

road and obtain public comments under the NEPA. 

Sec. 6 would require the Secretary of the Interior to issue new regulations within 

6 months to ‘‘establish clear requirements to ensure that the Department of the Interior is supporting development of oil and gas leases in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.’’ This language is vague, and it is not clear how it would be interpreted. The Department of the Interior already has regulations providing specifically for oil and gas leases in NPRA (See 43 CFR Pt. 3130. See also 43 CFR 2360, 

Subpart 2361 (Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in 

Alaska) . Since the bill only amends Section 107(a) of the Naval Petroleum Reserves 

Production Act (NPRPA) of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6506a(a)), the regulations would still 

need to adhere to language elsewhere in NPRPA calling for protection of the environment.1

Sec. 8 would require the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the State of 

Alaska and the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, to complete within 

2 years ‘‘a comprehensive assessment of all technically recoverable fossil fuel resources’’ within NPRA, ‘‘including all conventional and unconventional oil and natural gas.’’ In 2002, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated mean volumes of 9.3 billion 

barrels of oil (BBO) and 55.7 trillion cubic feet (TCFG). In 2010, USGS reduced this 

estimate to 896 million barrels of oil (MMBO) and about 53 trillion cubic feet TCFG. 

The 90 percent reduction of estimated oil reserves was due in part to ‘‘recent NPRA 

exploration drilling which found gas rather than oil.’’ 2 With limited new drilling in 

recent years, a new assessment is unlikely to show greatly different results than 

what was found in 2010. 

In summary, the new NPRA integrated activity plan provides an exemplary balance between oil and gas development on the NPRA with the protection of wildlife 

and wild land values. It is a ‘‘win-win’’ solution for both the oil and gas industry 

and protection of the environment. We see no reason for Congress to move forward 

with H.R. 1964, which would unnecessarily undermine the balanced approached to 

oil and gas development in the NPRA established by the new integrated activity 

plan. 

H.R. 1965

Sec. 111 of H.R. 1965 unnecessarily constrains the BLM’s ability to appropriately 

review the contents of Applications for Permits to Drill (APDs) beyond the statutory 

timeframes already established under Sec. 366 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPCA). Worse, the provisions provides for the automatic approval of an APD after 

60 days, if the agency has not made a decision on it by then. The rationale for this 

provision is based on the false premise that quicker action on APDs by the BLM 

will result in more drilling projects getting underway faster than under the BLM’s 

present practices. That assumption ignores the fact that the oil and gas industry 

has obtained from the BLM nearly 7,000 more drilling permits than it is using. 

Sec. 121 is apparently intended to discourage citizens from exercising their right 

to administratively appeal oil and gas leasing and permitting decisions by requiring 

81

citizens to pay a $5,000 ‘‘documentation fee’’ for all protests of leases, rights of way, 

or APDs. Of course, most citizens who may be affected by oil and gas leasing and 

permitting decisions on the public lands do not have the financial resources of the 

oil and gas industry to represent their interests in such matters, so the $5,000 fee 

is effectively a penalty assessment for citizens seeking to merely exercise their right 

to appeal. 

In furtherance of the notion that energy development, and in this case oil and gas 

development, should be the predominate use of our Federal public lands, Sec. 202 

of H.R. 1965 requires that the BLM offer for lease at least 25 percent of all lands 

nominated by the oil and gas industry each year, prohibits the issuance of leases 

on these lands from being protested, and prohibits the applicability of NEPA to leasing decisions on these lands. It also requires the BLM to make available all lands 

that are currently ‘‘open’’ to leasing under existing land use plans within 18 months 

of enactment. It requires the BLM to offer leases in areas undergoing land use plan 

revisions, thereby severely inhibiting the agency’s discretion to protect the host of 

other resource values that the agency is responsible for addressing under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. And Section 205 overturns Instruction 

Memorandum 2010–117, which re-established the policy that oil and gas development is one of many multiple-uses of the public lands that the BLM is responsible 

for managing under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

Subtitle D of the bill advances the idea that energy development is the highest 

priority use for onshore Federal public lands in a number of unfortunate and unnecessary ways. It severely undermines judicial review opportunities pertaining to energy projects on Federal lands by limiting venue, the filing period for court actions, 

the standard of review, injunctive relief, and by eliminating attorney fees under the 

Equal Access to Justice Act. For example, Sec. 142 states that, ‘‘In any judicial review of a covered civil action, administrative findings and conclusions relating to the 

challenged Federal action or decision shall be presumed to be correct, . . .’’ This remarkable, prejudicial, and probably unconstitutional language directs the court’s review of cases challenging energy development decisions regardless of the overall 

merits of a plaintiff’s complaint. Section 146 goes on to improperly narrow the scope 

of injunctive relief available to the courts, including arbitrarily limiting such relief 

to 60 days, with limited opportunities for relief periods to be briefly extended. Finally, Section 147 prohibits the award of attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to 

Justice Act for plaintiffs who successfully challenge energy project decisions. 

In summary, Title II of H.R. 1965 allows the oil and gas industry to make management decisions for the public lands owned by all Americans, rather than have 

those decisions made by the Federal agency charged with the responsibility of being 

stewards of these lands for all of us. It encourages the industry to speculate and 

‘‘lock up’’ lands with marginal or non-existent development potential, which then 

hamstrings the BLM’s ability to protect other values of the public lands. Moreover, 

the bill bars citizens—the owners of these lands—as well as other interested parties, 

like State and local governments, from administratively protesting leasing decisions 

if leases were improvidently issued. And drilling permit applications on those lands 

are automatically eligible for ‘‘categorical exclusion’’ from review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act under the auspices of Sec. 390 of the Energy Policy Act 

of 2005, with no additional environmental review or opportunities for public input. 

Title III essentially codifies the Bush Administration’s oil shale leasing policy, a 

policy that would have unnecessarily made millions of acres of Federal lands containing oil shale deposits available for disposal to oil shale speculators. As we have 

noted before, millions of acres of oil shale resources are already under the control 

of private entities (see, National Strategic Unconventional Resource Model, U.S. Department of Energy Office of Petroleum Reserves, April 2006, p. 6.), including oil 

shale deposits on public lands, representing hundreds of billions of barrels of oil 

equivalent. Yet, no successful commercial oil shale development has ever occurred 

on these lands. So there is no factual basis to the presumption that the only thing 

holding back a commercial oil shale industry is the lack of a commercial Federal 

leasing program. 

H.R. 1394

Finally, with respect to H.R. 1394, although the general idea that the Federal 

Government should strategically plan for energy development on the public lands 

is a laudable one, the bill unfortunately prioritizes fossil fuel development over renewable energy development, and—as with H.R. 1965—essentially elevates energy 

development as the highest priority use of our public lands. 

Both H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394 undermine Congress’ basic statutory directive to 

the BLM for how our public lands should be managed. That direction is found in 

82

Section 102(a)(8) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act, sometimes 

known as ‘‘FLPMA’s Golden Rule’’: 

It is the policy of the United States that the public lands be managed in a manner 

that will protect the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, 

air and atmospheric, water resource, and archeological values; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that 

will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that 

will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. 

Since H.R. 1965 and H.R. 1394, if enacted, would make energy development the 

highest ‘‘single use’’ of our Nation’s public lands, we strongly oppose these bills. 

Sincerely, 

DAVID ALBERSWERTH, 

Senior Policy Advisor. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And if there is no further business to come before 

the Committee, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional Material Submitted for the Record}

The following material submitted for the record has been retained the the Committee’s official files.

By William W. Britain:

—EnergyNet backgroung brochure 

—EnergyNet, MARKETPLACE QUARTERLY, 1st QUARTER, 2013

—EnergyNet, MARKETPLACE QUARTERLY, 2nd QUARTER, 2013

—EnergyNet, The BLM Live Internet Auction Act: The dicsussion of the benefits this legislation could bring to the Bureau of Land Management, http://

www.energynet.com/blm—internet—auction.pl

—EnergyNet, The Continuous Oil & Gas Property Marketplace, Harvard Professor Market Analysis 

—ENERGYNET.COM, INC., Committee Report, Oil and Gas Lease Internet 

Auction Pilot (OGLIAP), Kevin McDonald, 10/12/2009

—ENERGYNET.COM, INC., Post-Sale Statistical Analysis Oil and Gas Lease 

Internet Auction Pilot (OGLIAP), Kevin L. McDonald, 9/21/2009

—ENERGYNET.COM, INC., Updated Research and Industry Feedback Oil and 

Gas Lease Internet Auction Pilot (OGLIAP), 3/3/2010

—The following Web site URL leads to a 10-minute video presentation regarding the benefits of the BLM Live Internet Auctions Act: http://

www.energynet.com/blm_internet_auction.pl

BY: Deborah S. Miller:

—ON ARCTIC GROUND, Tracking Time Through Alaska’s National Petroleum 

Reserve

Æ