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

76–612 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–595 

NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

TO

PROVIDE OVERSIGHT ON REMEDIATION OF FEDERAL LEGACY WELLS 

IN THE NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE-ALASKA 

JULY 12, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARK UDALL, Colorado 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MIKE LEE, Utah 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL COATS, Indiana 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota 

DEAN HELLER, Nevada 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

ROBERT M. SIMON, Staff Director 

SAM E. FOWLER, Chief Counsel 

MCKIE CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

KAREN K. BILLUPS, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS 

Page 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico ........................................ 1 

Brower, Charlotte, Mayor, North Slope Borough, AK .......................................... 28 

Cribley, Bud, Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior ............................................................................................. 4 

Foerster, Cathy, Engineering Commissioner and Chair, Alaska Oil and Gas 

Conservation Commission, Anchorage, AK ........................................................ 11 

Millett, Charisse, Representative, Alaska House of Representatives, Anchorage, AK .................................................................................................................. 7 

Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska ............................................... 2 

APPENDIX 

Responses to additional questions .......................................................................... 33 

(1) 

NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE 

THURSDAY, JULY 12, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:36 a.m. in room SD– 

366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman, chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. 

SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. Why don’t we call the hearing to order? 

Today, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will 

have a hearing on the issue of Federal oil and gas legacy wells in 

the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. This is an issue that, of 

course, Senator Murkowski has had a great interest in and urged 

us to have the hearing. 

The NPRA has an interesting history, having been first designated as a Naval petroleum reserve by President Harding in 

1923 for defense purposes. The U.S. Navy, and subsequently the 

U.S. Geological Survey, undertook exploration drilling from the period 1944 until 1982. As a result, 136 so-called legacy wells and 

boreholes are located within the NPRA. Jurisdiction over the NPRA 

was transferred from the Navy to the Department of the Interior 

by legislation in 1976. 

According to information provided by the BLM, of the 136 legacy 

exploration wells and borehole sites, 41 legacy wells remain. The 

agency continues to monitor site conditions. According to BLM, the 

agency has done significant work on wells that have been subject 

to coastal erosion in an effort to avoid increased risk to public 

health and to the environment. 

I understand that obtaining the resources necessary to remediate 

these sites has been a challenge. In this time of fiscal constraint, 

securing adequate appropriations for this effort is difficult. I am 

told that the base level of appropriations for legacy well remediation in the NPRA in recent years has not been high. However, I am glad that over $16 million has been made available under the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to remediate the 

Drew Point well site. I know that emergency authority has also 

been invoked in the past by the BLM in order to address problem 

well sites. 

So we thank the witnesses for traveling as far as they have to 

offer testimony today. I look forward to hearing from them. Let me 

defer to Senator Murkowski for her comments. 
2 

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

FROM ALASKA 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I truly appreciate you scheduling this very important hearing this morning. 

This is important to Alaska, but I think from a larger perspective 

it’s important because I think it speaks to the commitment that the 

Federal Government should have when it comes into a State and 

operates and then leaves. I think we all assume that there is a responsibility to be a, quote, ‘‘responsible operator.’’ In this instance, 

I think we have seen some failures here, so the opportunity to 

speak to that and to what the potential solutions are, I think, is 

important. 

I’d like to take a moment and thank our witnesses that are here 

today. We have the BLM Alaska Director, Mr. Bud Cripley. We 

have from the State Legislature our Representative, Charisse 

Millett, from the Anchorage area. We also have the Alaska Oil and 

Gas Commission Chair, Cathy Foerster—all who have traveled 

here today to testify before the committee. 

I thank you for making the long trek. The good news for you is 

it’s not as hot now as it was last week. So you’ll be able to survive 

this brief visit back here. 

I also want to take a moment to recognize North Slope Borough 

Mayor Charlotte Brower. The mayor couldn’t be with us here 

today. She is from Barrow, Alaska. But this is, of course, a very 

important issue to Mayor Brower and the folks in the North Slope 

Borough. The mayor had asked that I read a very brief statement 

into the record on her behalf. She states as follows: 

‘‘As a cooperating agency with BLM, the North Slope Borough 

must be a part of the process to prioritize and address the impacts 

of oil and gas exploration. Just a few months ago, I was in Washington, DC, and met with then Director Abbey and raised our 

issues of concern with this process of cleaning up the legacy wells 

left behind after the Navy and USGS exploration process. 

‘‘He stated that BLM is committed to capping these wells, but it 

is a, quote, ‘unfunded mandate,’ close quote. The Federal Government wishes to act as steward of the land in Alaska, often telling 

Alaskans and residents 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 the landowner. 

‘‘Residents want to develop the resources, but they also want to 

do so responsibly. The residents of the NPRA and the North Slope 

Borough that rely on the planning area for subsistence must be assured that they are not exposed to harmful levels of oil development associated contaminants, contaminants, and that they will be 

protected against a range of contaminant associated disorders. 

‘‘Reassurance to our communities of continued safety of subsistence resources will foster the continued viability of the subsistence 

diet and way of life. It will also reinforce our common goal of environmentally responsible development of the oil and gas resources 

in the area. This we can do by working together.’’ 

That’s the comment from Mayor Brower. 

Mr. Cribley, I really do appreciate you taking the time to come 

here today. But I also recognize that you get it. You understand the 

situation and the problem in Alaska. It probably would have been 
3 

more cost effective for us if we had had some of the folks from the 

BLM office here in DC testifying on this issue. 

I know from numerous meetings on this topic that you recognize 

the problem. I would be surprised if you told me that you have not 

personally pushed for increased funding from your superiors to remediate these leaking wells. So I think the message needs to be relayed very clearly that we want to hear directly from those here in 

Washington in terms of what they anticipate the schedule will be. 

I want to emphasize to my colleagues how dire the situation in 

the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska really is and, I think, shed 

a little bit of light on the hypocrisy hypocrisy that is on display 

here in the Federal Government. As the chairman has noted, there 

were 136 wells that were drilled in NPRA over a period of many 

decades. Only 16 of those 136 wells have been properly plugged. 

Seven were taken care of by the North Slope Borough, not by BLM. 

The remaining 120 wells are in various conditions of non-compliance with State law. There’s 3 missing wells, one of which is under 

a land slide at the edge of the Colville. The two others are at bottoms of lakes where remediation is going to be tough to get to. 

I think we recognize that this is a costly process. It doesn’t come 

cheap. But, again, when you think about the standards that others 

are held to and held accountable for, it’s only right, it’s only appropriate that the Federal Government be held to those same standards. 

This is the same Federal Government and Department of Interior who has held private industry to the highest of standards with 

regard to environmental protection, as they should. Alaskans want 

responsible development and exploration, but not at risk of the environment. 

I commend the private industry, as they have worked with the 

Federal Government to meet the high standards. But the question 

really has to be asked: Why, then, should the Federal Government 

not have to live up to those same standards? 

When you couple this failure in the NPRA with other broken 

promises by the Federal Government to Alaskans, I think it really 

pushes and strains the relationship that Alaskans have with our 

own government. I must say I’m having a bit of a difficult time reconciling the fact that DOI is unable—they say they are unable to 

fund well remediation efforts within NPRA, even though funding 

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund continues to increase. 

Not only does each land management agency have staggering 

maintenance backlogs, but Interior as a whole, I think, has more 

pressing needs than purchasing additional land. 

Alaskans are united on this issue. I commend you, Representative Millett, for taking the lead on this and pushing it. I know that 

other members of this committee share my concern for cleaning up 

the ongoing environmental pollution within the NPRA. 

Again, I thank you all for being here, and I thank the chairman 

for his commitment to work with us on this issue. 

The CHAIRMAN. All of you have been essentially introduced. Why 

don’t we start with you, Mr. Cribley? If you’ll give us the BLM perspective on this, and then Ms. Millett and then Ms. Foerster—we’ll 

be glad to hear from all of you. Each of you take 5 or 6 minutes, 
4 

tell us what you think we need to know, and then we’ll have some 

questions. 

STATEMENT OF BUD CRIBLEY, ALASKA STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin my oral 

testimony, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, 

Chairman Bingaman and Senator Murkowski, for taking time out 

of a very important schedule to recognize the significance of this 

issue and take it to a national forum. 

I’d also like to recognize State Representative Charisse Millett 

and also Chairman Cathy Foerster for the work that they have 

done in Alaska to bring this issue up and provide an opportunity 

for a dialog on it. It’s a very important issue to us in Alaska and 

I know nationally to the Bureau. So thank you. 

With that, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Bureau of Land Management’s role in remediating legacy 

wells in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska. NPRA is a 23 

million acre roadless area located 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle. This remote, treeless, and mostly frozen landscape exists in a 

sensitive ecological balance. It is rich in resources and holds significant potential for oil and gas production. 

The Arctic ecosystem supports caribou, water fowl, shore birds, 

polar bear, walrus, and other marine mammals. It is home to a 

people who have inhabited it for over 8,000 years and depend upon 

it for its subsistence. Within the NPRA, the BLM manages surface 

and subsurface resources and the legacy wells. The legacy wells are 

136 test wells and boreholes drilled by the Navy and the United 

States Geological Survey from 1943 to 1982. They are drilled to 

evaluate the use of modern petroleum exploration and production 

methods in Arctic conditions. 

The BLM priority is to protect public health, safety, and the environment through the remediation of the legacy wells. The agency 

actively monitors site conditions and directs available funding to 

address sites that pose a potential risk. 

The BLM has plugged and remediated 18 legacy wells. In addition, one well was plugged by the U.S. Navy. Eighteen wells were 

partially plugged and currently managed by the USGS to monitor 

climate change. Twenty-four have been transferred out of Federal 

ownership, and 34 are uncased boreholes drilled for geologic and 

permafrost research. The BLM actively monitors conditions on the 

remaining 41 legacy well sites. 

In 2004, the BLM completed an inventory and analyzed the risk 

associated with each of the legacy wells. The report identified a 

number of wells that posed a potential risk and determined other 

sites present no significant threat. The information from the inventory guided the BLM’s BLM’s decision to direct funding to plug 

wells at sites that posed the greater risk, including a series of wells 

located near Umiat, a town on the southeastern boundary of the 

NPRA. Umiat’s proximity to an airstrip, fuel supplies, and camp facilities and other infrastructure significantly reduced the cost to 

bring people, equipment, and materials into the area for a remediation project. 
5 

The BLM also responded when a series of Arctic storms caused 

a large area of coastal shoreline to calve into the ocean and placed 

4 legacy well sites in danger of eroding into the Beaufort Sea. The 

BLM secured emergency funding and plugged the wells threatened 

by coastal erosion, including the JW Dalton legacy well site, where 

more than 300 feet of shoreline had eroded, exposing the well head. 

Moving forward, the BLM will continue to monitor legacy wells 

and will plug and remediate wells that present a potential risk. To 

guide our efforts, BLM will complete an updated legacy well summary report and strategic plan in this fiscal year. The plan will 

outline the agency’s potential for plugging the remaining legacy 

well sites. 

In preparing the updated report, the BLM is working with the 

Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission to come to a common 

understanding of the status and condition of the wells and to consider their recommendations on priority sequencing. The BLM has 

shared individual legacy well file information with the AOGCC and 

expects to receive the results from their review in September. 

In the meantime, BLM has developed cost estimates and a proposed plan to plug the Iko Bay Well No. 1 and two other wells. The 

BLM is also developing a draft multi-season strategy to address an 

additional 13 legacy wells over 3 seasons. 

The BLM recognizes the importance of remediating legacy wells 

in the NPRA. The agency remains committed to directing available 

funding to plug and remediate the remaining legacy wells in order 

to protect health, safety, and the environment. The agency also recognizes the importance of working collaboratively with the State of 

Alaska, native corporations, tribal governments, and other partners, including the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission, to accomplish 

this strategy. 

I’ll be glad to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cribley follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BUD CRIBLEY, ALASKA STATE DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND

MANAGEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Introduction 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the role of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in the remediation of legacy wells in the National Petroleum Reserve 

in Alaska (NPR-A). The BLM is responsible for the management of 136 test wells 

and reserve pits in the NPR-A that were drilled, but not closed, by the U.S. Navy 

and Federal civilian agencies from 1943 to 1982. The BLM’s priority is to protect 

human health and the environment through the remediation of the legacy wells. 

The agency actively monitors site conditions and directs available funding to address sites that pose a potential risk. 

Background 

The NPR-A is a 23 million-acre roadless area located 200 miles north of the Arctic 

Circle. This remote, treeless, mostly frozen landscape exists in a sensitive ecological 

balance. It is rich in both renewable and nonrenewable resources, including one of 

the most prolific geologic systems on the North American continent. Portions of the 

NPR-A hold high potential for oil and gas production. The area also features recreational and cultural values, including more than 1,000 historic and prehistoric 

sites, and Arctic wetland ecosystems, riverine habitats and upland areas that support caribou, waterfowl, shorebirds, polar bear, walrus, and other marine mammals. 

Furthermore, the area is home for a people who have inhabited it for 8,000 years 

and depend upon it for subsistence. 

Petroleum exploration in the NPR-A has been ongoing for nearly 100 years. In 

the early 1900s, field geologists from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

exploring the North Slope of Alaska found several oil seeps in this area. Their dis-
6 

covery prompted President Warren G. Harding to set aside this portion of Alaska’s 

North Slope as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy. President Harding established the Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR-4) by Executive Order in 1923. During early exploration programs, the U.S. Navy (1944-1953) and the U.S. Geological 

Survey (1975-1982) drilled 136 exploratory wells and boreholes at depths ranging 

from 100 to 20,335 feet. Now called ‘‘legacy wells,’’ these exploratory wells and 

boreholes were drilled to establish the feasibility of using modern petroleum exploration and production methods in Arctic conditions. Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 

4 was renamed the ‘‘National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska,’’ and administration of 

the area was transferred from the U.S. Navy to the U.S. Department of the Interior, 

under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-258, 90 Stat. 

303). 

The BLM, an agency of the Department of the Interior, is responsible for protecting the resources and managing the uses of our nation’s public lands, which are 

located primarily in 12 Western states, including Alaska. Within the NPR-A, the 

BLM is responsible for the management of the surface and subsurface resources 

which includes the legacy wells and reserve pits. 

Since 1952, 19 wells have been plugged. The U.S. Navy plugged 1 well in 1952. 

The BLM began its plugging efforts in 2002 and has plugged 18 wells, remediated 

contaminated soils where necessary, and removed surface debris; another 18 wells 

are partially plugged and are used and managed by the U.S. Geological Survey 

(USGS) as climate change monitoring wells; 24 are on land that has been transferred out of Federal ownership; and 34 are uncased or partially cased boreholes 

drilled for geologic strata and permafrost research On the remaining 41 legacy well 

sites, the BLM actively monitors site conditions. 

Inventory, Assessment & Remediation 

In 2004, the BLM completed an inventory and reviewed the condition and analyzed the risk posed to humans and the environment from the legacy wells. The inventory identified a number of legacy wells that posed a potential risk to public 

health, safety and the environment, and determined that many other sites presented no significant threat. The information from the assessments allowed the 

BLM to direct funding and attention to plug wells and remediate surface soils at 

sites that posed the greatest risk, while continuing to monitor conditions at the 

other sites. Costs for remediation vary dramatically depending on the proximity to 

infrastructure and the level of soil remediation necessary. 

Umiat 

Based on the priorities identified in the 2004 report, the BLM plugged a series 

of wells located near Umiat, addressing concerns with surface contamination and 

well condition. Umiat’s proximity to infrastructure, including an airstrip, fuel supplies, and camp facilities, significantly reduced the cost to bring people, equipment, 

and materials into the area and to remove contaminated soils and surface debris 

from the area. In 2012, the BLM plugged two legacy wells near Umiat for $3.5 million. 

Response to Coastal Erosion 

The BLM monitors wells adjacent to the ocean annually to determine if coastal 

erosion or other changes pose an increased risk to health and the environment and 

takes appropriate action as necessary. The BLM has responded to several emergencies. After a series of Arctic storms caused severe coastal erosion, including the 

calving of large swaths of coastal shoreline, four legacy well sites were in imminent 

danger of eroding into the Beaufort Sea. The BLM responded to the emergencies at 

these four sites in the following manner: 

• JW Dalton—More than 300 feet of shoreline eroded near the JW Dalton well 

site during the 2004 winter season, exposing the well head. The BLM spent $8.9 

million to plug the JW Dalton well site. 

• East Teshekpuk—The East Teshekpuk well remediation was completed by the 

end of 2008 for $13 million. The high cost was due to the remote location of 

the site and the need to excavate, transport, and dispose of contaminated soils 

and solid waste. 

• Atigaru—Remediation of the Atigaru well site was completed in April 2009 at 

a total cost of $18.7 million. The high cost of this remediation was also due to 

the need to excavate, transport, and dispose of contaminated soils and solid 

waste. 

• Drew Point—The BLM removed 13,500 gallons of diesel fuel from the wellbore 

prior to plugging the well and removed approximately 5,000 cubic yards of petroleum-contaminated mud from the reserve pit. The contaminated mud was 
7 

hauled 35 miles overland from Drew Point to a disposal site. The project was 

completed in 2010 with $16.8 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA) funding. 

Moving Forward 

Moving forward, the BLM’s strategy is to continue monitoring the legacy wells 

and to first plug and remediate those wells that present a potential risk, while 

prioritizing future plugging and remediation based upon available funding. The 

BLM also recognizes the importance of working collaboratively with the State of 

Alaska, Native Corporations, Tribal governments, and other partners including the 

Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) to accomplish this strategy. 

To guide future efforts, the BLM expects to complete an updated Legacy Well 

Summary Report and a Strategic Plan in late 2012. The BLM monitors wells annually to determine changes in site or well conditions. The BLM uses the information 

gathered during inspections to assist in prioritizing the wells for future actions. The 

updated Strategic Plan will outline the agency’s priorities for plugging the remaining legacy well sites. In preparing the updated Legacy Well Summary Report and 

Strategic Plan, the BLM is working closely with the AOGCC to come to a common 

understanding of the status and condition of the wells. The BLM has shared individual legacy well file information with the AOGCC. The BLM expects to receive 

the AOGCC recommendations on priority sequencing in September. 

In the meantime, the BLM has developed cost estimates and a proposed plan to 

plug the Iko Bay #1 well and two other wells in close proximity to Iko Bay during 

the winter of 2013, pending funding approval. The BLM also developed a draft 

multi-season strategy to address 13 legacy wells over three seasons. 

Conclusion 

The BLM recognizes the importance of remediating the legacy wells in the NPRA. The BLM remains committed to directing available funding to plug and remediate the remaining legacy wells in order to protect health, safety, and the environment. I will be glad to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Representative Millett, go right ahead. 

STATEMENT OF CHARISSE MILLETT, REPRESENTATIVE, 

ALASKA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, ANCHORAGE, AK 

Ms. MILLETT. Thank you, Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member 

Murkowski, and members of the committee. I am Alaska State 

Representative Charisse Millett and a lifelong Alaskan. 

Thank you for the opportunity to communicate a message from 

the citizens of Alaska over their frustration on this 70-year-old 

problem and advocate for a solution. With this committee’s help, I 

believe we can get the Federal Government to clean up its mess 

and be good stewards of our land as our mission States. 

During the 2012 Alaska Legislative Session, I sponsored House 

Joint Resolution 29. It has been submitted to the chair for this 

hearing, and I ask that it be submitted for the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’ll be glad to include that in our record. 

Ms. MILLETT. Thank you. This resolution urges the Bureau of 

Land Management, the BLM, to plug legacy wells properly and to 

reclaim the legacy well sites as soon as possible in order to protect 

the environment in the Arctic. It passed the House unanimously. 

In fact, every member of the Alaska House of Representatives 

signed on as a co-sponsor. 

From 1944 to 1982, the United States Navy and the United 

States Geological Survey drilled 136 wells in or near the National 

Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, NPRA. NPRA is part of the northern 

Arctic coastal plain that includes Prudhoe Bay, the Arctic National 

Wildlife Refuge, ANWR, and stretches all the way to northern Can-
8 

ada. These areas are similar in biology, geography, and oil and gas 

potential. 

The NPRA was a test bed, not just for oil and gas exploration 

practices in the Arctic, but also presented a significant opportunity 

to test Arctic engineering practices. Nearly every site has a variation on the surface and the subsurface as different technologies 

were tried. 

The BLM is now the custodian responsible for the surface and 

subsurface property, including the custody of the abandoned wells 

now referred to as legacy wells. Only 16 of the 136 wells have been 

properly plugged and abandoned. Of those 16, 7 were plugged not 

by the BLM but by the North Slope Borough. 

The remaining 120 wells are in various conditions of flagrant 

non-compliance. The drill sites, many of which have rusting barrels 

filled with contaminants—and may still be. We just don’t know. 

Two of the 120 wells are currently, and may have been for up to 

30 years, leaking hydrocarbon gas into the atmosphere. 

Three other wells can no longer be found. Of those 3 missing 

wells, one well is under a land slide at the edge of the Colville 

River, the same river that a bridge permit for a private operator 

was delayed for over 5 years due to environmental concerns. Two 

others are at the bottom of lakes where remediation will be very 

difficult and very expensive. 

As you can see by the shockingly graphic pictures presented 

today, we should agree that remediation is long overdue. Allowing 

these unsafe and unsightly wells to litter Alaska’s wilderness while 

threatening wildlife, human safety, and damaging the pristine Arctic environment is unacceptable. 

These legacy wells have been an issue for over 60 years. Many 

administrations have failed Alaskans, responsible operators, and by 

extension, all Americans. However, the current Federal Government has the opportunity now to take action and solve this problem. Let’s stop the out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality. The Federal Government has received approximately $9.4 billion 

from lease sales in the NPRA and the outer continental shelf of 

Alaska. Of that $9.4 billion, there has not been one penny used to 

plug the abandoned or reclaim the legacy wells. 

The State of Alaska cannot impose fines on the Federal Government like we would on our private operators. But if we could, the 

fines would exceed $8 billion. If the statute of limitations were removed, $40 billion. While the Federal Government rightfully demands proper environmental stewardship on development in Alaska and often uses its administrative powers to delay, stop our responsible developers in the name of environmental protection, it 

turns a blind eye to its own environmental disaster. 

This hypocrisy outrages Alaskans and should outrage all Americans. It adds insult to injury. Alaskans take pride in how we hold 

developers to the highest environmental standards in the world. 

Yet the Federal Government, responsible for protecting America’s 

land, is the worst offender in Alaska. 

Currently, the Federal Government is rewriting the management 

plan for the National Petroleum Reserve. It just finished with the 

public comment portion. Amazingly enough, enough, environmental 

NGO’s submitted over a thousand pages of comments, stating they 
9 

* All attachments have been retained in committee files. 

supported the most restrictive plan that would provide the most 

protection to the environment of the NPRA. So it’s ironic that not 

one of those NGO’s has felt any similar urgency to come to the aid 

of the legacy wells and the damage already inflicted by the Federal 

Government. 

This goes to the fundamental question of why land should be removed from potential exploration when the true test is one of management. On this level, both the Federal Government and the environmental groups have misplaced their priorities. 

The Alaska BLM receives about $1 million a year toward this 

cleanup effort. The last 3 wells they remediated cost $2 million 

each. At that pace, my 2-year-old grandson will only see half of 

these well sites cleaned up in his lifetime. The rest would pollute 

into the next century. 

Now for solutions. The administration is planning more offshore 

Alaska and NPRA lease sales. Let’s use a portion of those revenues 

and plug the abandoned wells and clean up the Arctic tundra. 

Another option is to lease the well sites to private operators to 

clean up as a lease requirement those well sites. Last, convey the 

lands back to Alaska. We’ll take responsibility. We’ll clean up those 

lands. Let’s help keep Alaska clean. 

Thank you for your consideration and time, and I’m available for 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Millett follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CHARISSE MILLETT, REPRESENTATIVE, ALASKA HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES, ANCHORAGE, AK 

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the committee. 

Thank you for the opportunity to communicate a message from the citizens of 

Alaska over their frustration on this 70-year-old problem and advocate for A solution. With this committees help I believe we can get the federal government to clean 

up its mess, and be good stewards of our land as their mission states. 

During the 2012 Alaska legislative session I sponsored House Joint Resolution 29. 

It has been submitted to the Chair for this hearing. The resolution urges the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to plug legacy wells properly and to reclaim the 

legacy well sites as soon as possible in order to protect the environment in the arctic. It passed the House unanimously; in fact, every member of the Alaska House 

of Representatives is a co-sponsor of this legislation. Attached to my written testimony is a copy of the Resolution. (Attachment 1*) 

From 1944 to 1982 the United States Navy and the United States Geological Survey drilled 136 wells in or near the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A). 

NPR-A is part of the northern Arctic coastal plain that includes Prudhoe Bay, the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and stretches all the way to the Northern 

Canada. These areas are all similar in biology, geography and oil and gas resource 

potential. Attached you will find a map of current map of current, relinquished and 

expired tracts for NPR-A, and a map of locations of the legacy wells. (Attachment 

2) 

The NPR-A was a test bed not just for oil and gas exploration practices in the 

Arctic, but also presented a significant opportunity to test Arctic-engineering practices. Nearly every site has a variation on the surface and underground as different 

technologies were tried. 

The BLM is now the custodian responsible for the surface and sub-surface property, including the custody of the abandoned wells, now referred to as the legacy 

wells. Secretarial Order Nos. 3071 and 3087 were issued in 1982. With the abolishment of the Conservation Division of the USGS in 1982, the NPR-A became under 

sole jurisdiction of the BLM. 
10 

Only sixteen of the 136 legacy wells have been properly plugged and abandoned. 

Of those sixteen 7 were plugged not by the BLM but by the North Slope Borough. 

The remaining 120 wells are in various conditions of flagrant non-compliance. The 

drill sites, many of which are contaminated by wood, metal, plastic, glass and concrete debris are also littered with rusting barrels once filled with contaminants and 

may still be, we don’t know. 

Two of the 120 wells are currently, and may have been for 30 years leaking hydrocarbon gas into the atmosphere. Three other wells can no longer be found. One well 

is under a landslide at the edge of the Colville River, the same river that a bridge 

permit for a private operator was delayed for over five years due to environmental 

concerns. 

Two others are at the bottom of lakes where remediation will be very difficult and 

expensive. 

Allowing these unsafe and unsightly wells to litter Alaska wilderness while 

threatening wildlife and human safety and damaging the pristine arctic environment is unacceptable. 

In June of 2001 an EPA pollution report was filled by the North Slope Borough 

(NSB) received a report that Simpson Well #31 was leaking crude oil from a private 

citizen. NSB confirmed this report on a site visit performed June 4, 2001. An estimate provided by North Slope Borough Officials indicates that there is 40—50 gallons of crude oil on the ground around the wellhead. On June 7, 2001, BLM was 

notified by the NSB and reported the situation to the NRC and ADEC. On June 

8, a BLM Petroleum Engineer and Petroleum Engineering Technician visited the 

site and confirmed a minor leak. The master valve was not completely closed and 

the wellhead was leaking at a swedge (pipe reduction coupling) above the master 

valve, and the master valve may be leaking. The total volume that has leaked from 

the well is unknown, but it was estimated that the well is leaking at a rate of about 

one gallon per day. This report went to 8 different people. The BLM responded, however, this well is 40 miles from Barrow and there is much human activity that takes 

place near Barrow in the form of subsistence hunting and fishing, There are many 

wells within the NPR-A that are only visited by wildlife and the sporadic visits to 

monitor the wells by the BLM. My worry and the worry of many Alaskans there 

are more wells like Simpson 31 that have, or are currently polluting the environment. I attached the full EPA report. (Attachment 3) 

The legacy wells have been an issue for over 60 years. Many administrations have 

failed Alaskans, responsible operators, and by extension all Americans on this problem, however the current federal government has the opportunity to take action now 

and solve this problem. Lets stop the—out of sight out of mind mentality on this 

issue. 

The federal government has received approximately $9,400,000,000.00 from lease 

sales in the NPR-A and the outer continental shelf of the Alaska. Of that $9.4 billion dollars there has not been one penny has been used to plug, abandon or reclaim 

legacy wells in NPR-A. 

The State of Alaska cannot impose fines on the federal government like we would 

on our private operators for violating our State regulations, if we could the fines 

would exceed $8,000,000,000.00. If the statute of limitations were waived, the fines 

would exceed $40,000,000,000.00 

While the Federal Government rightfully demands proper environmental stewardship on development in Alaska, and often uses administrative powers to delay or 

stop responsible development in the name of environmental protection. It turns a 

blind eye to its own festering environmental disaster. This hypocrisy outrages Alaskans, and should outrage all Americans. It adds insult to injury. Alaskans take 

pride in how we hold all developers to the highest environmental standards in the 

world, yet the federal government responsible for protecting America’s lands is the 

worst offenders in Alaska. 

Currently the federal government is rewriting the management plan for the NPRA. It just finished the public comment portion. Amazingly enough the Environmental NGO’s submitted over a 1000 pages of comments stating they supported the 

most restrictive plan that would provide the most protection to the environment of 

the NPR-A. So it is ironic that not one of those NGO’s has felt any similar urgency 

to come to the aid of cleaning up the damage already inflicted by the federal government’s legacy wells. This goes to the fundamental question of why lands should be 

removed from potential exploration, when the true test is one of management. On 

this level, both the federal government and the environmental groups have misplaced their priorities. 

The only media coverage on this problem has been from the local Alaska, in the 

media reports we get mixed messages from the local BLM. I have attached a few 
11 

samplings so you can get the feel for the frustration Alaskans have over the inaction 

of the federal government (Attachment 4) 

I have also included a link to an extensive data base of pictures of legacy wells, 

the BLM Legacy Well Summary Report; National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska—November 2004, and other pertinent documents: http://video.housemajority.org/ 

index.php?dir=BLM+Legacy+Wells%2F 

Now for solutions: The Administration is planning more offshore Alaska and NPRA lease sales. Lets take a portion of those revenues and plug those wells and clean 

up the waste left on the tundra around these legacy wells. 

Upcoming planned lease sales in the NPR-A could target these legacy wells and 

as part of a lease agreement the leasee could as a condition of their lease take responsibility of remediation. 

The Federal Government could hand over the land to the State of Alaska, and 

in State of Alaska ownership we would remediate the legacy wells. 

The Alaska BLM receives about a million a year toward this clean up effort, the 

last three wells they remediated cost two million dollars each. At that pace my twoyear-old grandson would only see half the sites properly contained in his lifetime. 

The rest would pollute into the next century. 

I was in DC last spring admiring the monuments, the reflecting pool, the National 

Mall, ‘‘Americas front yard’’ and all the history this great District has to offer. I 

came upon a beautification project managed by the Department of the Interior for 

the National Mall; it is $250,000,000.00 project just to ‘‘spruce things up’’. I know 

the Department of the Interior has it’s priorities, and respect that things here in 

DC need attention now and then, but I and many Alaskans are asking please— 

please clean up your mess in our ‘‘backyard’’ now before more wells are lost and the 

damage to the pristine Arctic worsens. 

Lets help keep Alaska clean. 

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Foerster. 

STATEMENT OF CATHY FOERSTER,ENGINEERING COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR, ALASKA OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION 

COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, AK 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you. Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the committee, I’m Cathy 

Foerster, the Chair of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, the regulatory agency that oversees oil, gas, and geothermal exploration and production activities for the State of Alaska. 

Of the 136 legacy wells, only 16 have been properly plugged and 

abandoned to Alaska’s standards. I’m here representing the Governor of the State of Alaska, who has asked me to tell you that we 

expect the Federal Government to obey Federal and State laws by 

cleaning up each and every one of these wells and doing it properly. 

We have serious problems with the 120 wells that have not been 

properly addressed. Unfortunately, the Interior Department has 

only provided us data for the downhole condition of 61 of those 

wells, and 55 wells we’ve got the surface condition for. 

As much as I would love to talk about all 120 wells, I will limit 

my discussion to those wells for which I have up-to-date data. But 

we have no reason to believe that the remaining wells don’t have 

similar problems. 

A well that is plugged and abandoned to Alaska’s requirements 

has surface re-vegetation and remediation sufficient that the site 

blends in with the natural environment. Within a few summers, 

there should be no indication that there was ever a well there. All 

but two of the well sites for which we have surface data have some 
12 

manmade blemish marring the surface. Some of these, in my opinion, should be considered crimes against the environment. 

Twenty-six wells have been left open to the atmosphere and were 

left filled with drilling fluids. Several of them also encountered oil 

or gas. There has likely been significant contamination of the surrounding tundra and atmosphere by these various fluids escaping 

into the environment. 

Wood, metal, plastic, glass, and concrete debris litter 44 of the 

sites. Forty-nine have metal piping sticking out of the ground, and 

10 have open cellars, creating hazards for human and animal travelers. 

Seventeen wells were left filled with diesel. Diesel is the fluid 

that the EPA has prohibited operators from putting into wells. 

These wells also remain unremediated at the surface. They are environmental eyesores, at best, and potential sources for hazardous 

fluid contamination, at worst. 

Two of the wells leak hydrocarbon gases. Three can no longer be 

found. Twenty-nine are partially re-vegetated at the surface, but 

have unknown downhole conditions, making them landmines. The 

Interior Department considers these wells no longer of a concern 

because they’re fixed at the surface. Some of these wells do still 

have surface remediation issues, in our opinion. 

Let’s leave the surface for a minute and look at the downhole 

problems. In front of you should be well sketches for some actual 

legacy wells. We couldn’t make them into posters. I apologize for 

that. For each pair of well sketches, the sketch on the left shows 

the well’s existing condition, and the sketch on the right shows 

what it would look like if it were properly plugged. 

First is the East Simpson Test Well No. 2. At least 18 wells are 

in this condition. On the left, we see the existing situation, a well 

that was drilled to about 7,500 feet, cased to a little below 6,400 

feet, and has a series of cement plugs staged with drilling mud. 

Above that last plug, the well is left filled with diesel. But there 

is no guarantee that the diesel is still there after 32 years of neglect. 

On the right, we see the same well if it were plugged properly. 

The diesel would be safely removed and replaced with a waterbased fluid. Then a cement plug would be placed at the surface and 

the pipe cutoff below ground level with a marker plate identifying 

the well in case of future excavations. The second well, Simpson 

Core Test No. 27, is a well that is representative of at least 28 

wells that were drilled deep but cased shallow. The Interior Department considers these wells to be of low concern. 

You might ask why we’re worried about decades-old holes like 

this that the Interior Department isn’t concerned about. They reentered a well just like this earlier this year, the Umiat No. 6. 

However, when they got below the casing, they lost control of the 

well, and it started to flow on them. That’s called a blowout. Fortunately, they were able to regain control of the well. But that’s why 

we worry about these holes. 

For the sake of time, I’ll skip over the other two wells that I was 

planning to discuss. But I want to make a brief comment on one 

of them. It’s the Iko Bay No. 1, which the local residents, the na-
13 

tives that live in a village nearby, have nicknamed the whistling 

well, because they can hear it leaking natural gas constantly. 

The Interior Department has no documented standards for plugging and abandonment procedures. But the State of Alaska does, 

and the Interior Department is required by law to comply with 

those standards. The Interior Department is, however, very clear 

on the time limits for plugging a well. It must be done within 1 

year. Extensions can be granted but only for good reasons. Lack of 

budget and lack of lack of interest are not good reasons. 

Senators, I can’t express my disappointment and shame at the 

Interior Department’s failure to address these environmental ticking time bombs, these 120 messes. It’s long past time for them to 

take responsibility and clean them all up. My agency knows exactly 

what needs to be done, and we stand ready to help address these 

wells now. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am available to answer 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Foerster follows:] 

STATEMENT OF CATHY FOERSTER, ENGINEERING COMMISSIONER AND CHAIR, ALASKA

OIL & GAS CONSERVATION COMMISSION, ANCHORAGE, AK 

Chairman Bingaman, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the committee. From 1944 to 1981, the Federal Government drilled 136 wells in the western 

half of northern Alaska, in an area comparable to ANWR—in plants, animals and 

geography as well as in oil and gas resource potential. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) within the Department of the Interior 

operates these wells for the Federal Government. Every one of the wells has been 

out of compliance with Alaska regulations at one time or another, and most still are. 

I am here representing the Governor of Alaska. He has asked me to tell you that 

we expect the Federal Government to obey Federal and State Laws by cleaning up 

every one of these wells, promptly. 

Total well count is 136. Of the 136, only 16 are properly plugged and abandoned. 

Of those 16, 7 were plugged by a local Alaska government body. 

Five more wells have been considered plugged and abandoned by the BLM, but 

not by the AOGCC because they do not meet our safety and environmental requirements. 

Twenty-nine wells are holes in the ground. They never had any casing placed in 

them. BLM does not consider these wells to be a concern, but they have yet to convince the AOGCC of this. The downhole conditions of these wells are unknown and 

some of the wells still have surface remediation issues. 

Seventeen of the wells are allegedly being used for temperature monitoring by the 

United States Geological Service (USGS). However, USGS has provided no evidence 

to the AOGCC that (1) they are truly using the wells and (2) the wells are in a safe 

condition, even though Alaska law requires that they do so. 

Seventeen of the wells have been transferred to Alaska native ownership and are 

no longer a concern to the BLM. But they are still a concern to Alaskans. 

Two of the wells are leaking greenhouse gases. 

The remaining wells are also out of compliance but just don’t fit nicely into another category. 

AOGCC is working to get from BLM accurate data on the condition of the wells, 

but we don’t yet have accurate downhole data on 75 of the wells nor do we have 

surface data on 81 of the wells; so I will limit my descriptions to the specific problems that we know we have with the 61 for which we have good downhole data and 

the 55 for which we have good surface data. However, we have no reason to believe 

the remaiining wells do not have similar problems. 

At least 26 wells are open to the atmosphere and were left filled with drilling 

fluids. There has likely already been significant contamination of the surrounding 

tundra by these fluids swapping out after years of snow and snow melt. Further, 

several of the wells encountered oil or gas, and there is no way to guarantee that 

those fluids are escape. 

Wood, metal, plastic, glass, and concrete debris litter at least 44 of the sites. It’s 

embarrassing, no it’s pathetic, that the Federal Government will give the BLM 
14 

enough money to rent a helicopter, fly people up to the North Slope, and take pictures of these messes, but not enough to clean them up. 

At least 17 are filled with diesel. They are an environmental eyesore at best and 

a source of contamination at worst. 

At least three can no longer be found. One is under a landslide at the edge of 

the Colville River and two are in lakes. Since they can no longer be found, we have 

no way to confirm their surface or downhole conditions, essentially making them underwater mines and possible drinking water contaminators. 

At least two leak greenhouse gases. The leaks are at very low rates but have been 

allowed to continue for well over thirty years, thus having a substantial cumulative 

impact. 

Twenty-nine are partially re-vegetated at surface but have unknown downhole 

conditions, making them landmines. And some of them still have surface remediation issues. 

At least 49 have metal piping sticking out of the ground, which creates a hazard 

for local travelers (and not just of the human variety), especially in winter with 

snow cover. Ten have open cellars, which create a trip-and-fall hazard for human 

and animal travelers. 

The State of Alaska requires proper plugging and abandonment of wells to protect 

public safety, sources of drinking water, and the environment. 

A properly plugged and abandoned well has sufficient cement and other plugs 

placed in the hole to ensure that underground fluids cannot migrate. Only 16 of the 

136 wells meet this requirement. 

A properly plugged and abandoned well has the casing and all other protrusions 

cut off at least 3 feet below ground level so that they cannot create a hazard or become a problem during subsidence or other normal earth movement. Only 16 of the 

136 wells meet this requirement. A properly plugged and abandoned well has sufficient surface remediation that the site blends in with the natural vegetation. Within 

a few summers, there should be no surface indication of the well’s location. All but 

two of the wellsites for which we have data have some unaddressed man-made 

blemish marring the surface. 

The pictures you’ve seen so far have demonstrated the problems at the surface, 

but now let’s turn our attention to the downhole problems. The next two sets of 

sketches are for actual legacy wells. I’ve chosen these two wells because they show 

real problems that exist in many of the wells. For each pair of well sketches, the 

sketch on the left shows the well’s existing condition and the sketch on the right 

shows what it would look like if it were plugged properly. 

The first well is the East Simpson Test Well #2. At least 18 wells are in similar 

condition. The sketch on the left shows the existing situation, a well that was drilled 

to about 7500 feet, was cased to a little below 6400 feet, and has a series of cement 

plugs staged with drilling mud. Above the last plug, at about 2100 feet, the well 

is filled with diesel (the fluid that EPA has prohibited operators from pumping into 

wells). Actually it is more accurate to say that the top 2100’ held diesel in 1980. 

There is no guarantee that the diesel is all still there after 32 years of neglect. 

The sketch on the right shows what the well would look like if plugged properly. 

The diesel would be safely removed and replaced with a water-based drilling fluid. 

Then a 150-foot cement plug would be set at the surface, and the pipe cut off at 

least three feet below ground level with a marker plate identifying it in case of future excavations. This work should cost less than $500,000 per well. 

The second well is the Simpson Core Test #27. At least 28 other legacy wells are 

similar but 25 of them are worse because they have no wellhead. Thus the drilling 

fluids left in these wells have been open to the environment for between 30 and 68 

years. It is likely that some or all of these fluids have escaped to and damaged the 

surrounding tundra. 

The sketch on the left shows the existing situation, a 1500-foot deep open hole 

with about 100 feet of casing in the hole and sticking out at the surface. The hole 

was left filled with oil-based drilling fluids and no plug on top. 

The sketch on the right shows what the same well would look like if it were properly plugged and abandoned. The oil-based drilling fluids would be safely removed, 

the open hole section filled with cement through all depths that showed oil or gas 

potential—to ensure no migration of reservoir fluids. (This is important, since the 

well encountered discreet oil sands between 278 and 380 feet.) The cement plug 

would be carried to the top of the casing and the casing would be cut off at least 

three feet below ground level with a marker plate identifying it in case of future 

excavations. Again, this work should cost less than $500,000 well. 

You might ask why we’re worried about old holes that have been open since 1951. 

Certainly you would expect that the hole has healed itself below the casing. Well, 

that’s what the BLM expected when they plugged the Umiat #6 last year. However 
15 

when they got about 200 feet below the end of the casing, they lost control of the 

well and it started to flow on them. Fortunately they were able to regain well control and avoid a blowout, but that’s why we worry about these wells. 

The third well is the Iko Bay #1, which is called the whistling well by the native 

residents of the area because its wellhead leaks hydrocarbon gas. I included this 

well as an example of a well that might be more expensive to clean up, since a rig 

would be required to pull existing tubing out of the well before it could be abandoned. However, a big part of the rig cost would be for mobilization and demobilization and that cost could be shared by other wells if this were cleaned up as part 

of a larger program. 

The sketch on the left shows the existing situation, a 2700-foot open hole with 

casing set from 1200 feet to surface. There is no cement at the surface in several 

of the casing annuli; these annuli are supposed to have cement at the surface to 

prevent reservoir fluids from flowing and building up dangerous pressure at the surface. The open hole is plugged with cement from 2035 feet to 2200 feet. Above that, 

a slotted liner runs from within the casing down to about 1950 feet. A slotted liner 

is pipe with slots (holes) in it to allow fluids to flow through. No drilling fluids were 

left in the tubing or casing, which means the reservoir fluids from the open-hole section are in direct communication with the wellhead. And the open-hole section encountered several intervals with hydrocarbon gas potential. Thus, once the neglected 

wellhead developed a leak, this became the whistling well. 

The sketch on the right shows what the well would look like if properly plugged 

and abandoned. The tubing would be removed from the well. The entire slotted liner 

section would be plugged with cement to prevent any further migration of reservoir 

fluids. A 150-foot plug of cement would be set at surface. The previously un-cemented annuli would be filled with cement. Again, all casing strings would be cut 

off at least three feet below the surface and a marker plate would be placed. 

The last well is West Dease Test #1. I’ve included this well simply because it is 

representative of the 17 wells allegedly being used for temperature monitoring by 

USGS. I use the word ‘‘allegedly’’ because the USGS has not provided the required 

documentation to demonstrate that the wells are actually being used. They have 

also failed to provide the required information to demonstrate that the wells have 

mechanical integrity. For proper abandonment, these seventeen wells would simply 

need the diesel to be cleaned out of the hole (which should be done anyway), a 150- 

foot cement plug placed on top, the pipe cut off to at least three feet below ground 

level, and marker plates installed. All seventeen of these wells could be plugged for 

less than five million dollars. 

Out of curiosity, I looked up the BLM requirements for proper plugging and abandonment. The BLM requires an operator to plug and abandon a well promptly and 

according to an approved plan, whatever that means. In other words there are no 

documented BLM standards for plugging and abandonment. (Interestingly the National Park Service has very specific guidelines for onshore wells within their jurisdiction, as does BSEE for offshore wells.) However, even if BLM has no specific 

plugging and abandonment requirements they are still obligated to follow the laws 

of the State of Alaska and follow our regulations. 

Although BLM has no documented standards for plugging methods, they are very 

clear on time limits for plugging a well that is not in use. It must be plugged within 

ONE YEAR. Extensions can be granted for no more than one more year at a time, 

but the operator must demonstrate a good reason for the delay (And lack of budget 

or interest is not a good reason.) and must resubmit the request annually. 

Allowing these unsafe and unsightly wells to litter Alaska’s wilderness while 

threatening both human safety and the environment is unacceptable. Nonetheless, 

BLM has properly addressed only 9 of the 136 wells and well sites and Alaskans 

have taken care of another seven. 

If an oil company operated these wells, the AOGCC along with several Federal 

agencies would force compliance with our regulations and impose fines for non-compliance. And if we didn’t, the public outcry would be deafening. 

When it comes to the Federal Government as operator, we can find them to be 

in violation of our regulations but, unfortunately, we have no legal authority to force 

them into compliance. And we shouldn’t have to. Adequate funding should be specifically designated for the purpose of bringing these wells into compliance with 

Alaska’s—Federal—regulations. 

As a regulator I am aghast, along with my fellow Alaskans, that the BLM consistently fails to offer a plan to deal with these environmental ticking time bombs. It 

is long past time to take responsibility for and clean up these 120 messes. My agency has a thorough understanding of what is required to plug and abandon wells 

properly and in compliance with Alaska law. We want to work with the BLM to develop and implement a plan to accomplish this as soon as possible. 
16 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you all for your testimony. Let me start 

with a few questions. 

Mr. Cribley, Ms. Foerster just testified that the AOGCC—that’s 

the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission—is working to 

get from the BLM accurate data on the condition of the wells, but 

they do not have accurate downhole data on 75 wells, nor do they 

have surface data on 81 of the wells. Is there data that the BLM 

has that it is refusing to make available to the AOGCC? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. The Bureau is working very closely with the 

AOGCC right now, and we have provided to them all of the records 

that we have on the legacy wells in the NPRA and are ready to 

discuss with them the disposition or the condition and status of 

those wells. So we have shared everything that we have in our 

records. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you do not have information or data about 

wells that you have failed to provide to the AOGCC? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. No. We had just recently gone through and 

searched all of our records and provided additional records that we 

had not shared with them previously. But we have shared with 

them everything that we have in our files right now. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you about this strategic plan that 

you folks are developing, as I understand it. When is that going to 

be completed? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Right now, we’ve provided all of our information to 

AOGCC, and they’re scheduled to get back with us in September 

to have a discussion on the characteristics of the 136 wells. Our intent is to try to have that plan completed by the end of this year, 

calendar year 2012. 

The CHAIRMAN. Will that plan include an estimated cost of doing 

complete remediation or necessary remediation on the remaining 

wells? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. What the Bureau is working on right now is a 5- 

year strategy on how we would most efficiently approach remediation of the highest priority wells. One of the things that we need 

to do or we want to do is sit down with the Commission and also 

with tribal interests in the North Slope Borough as far as priorities 

of the wells. We don’t have that done yet, but that would be 

factored into that strategy as far as what we would do in the near 

term. 

The CHAIRMAN. But, now, are you implying there that you’ve got 

a 5-year strategy to identify what needs to be done on the highest 

priority wells, but at the end of the 5 years there will still be unremediated wells? Is that what I understand? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. That 5-year strategy won’t address the remediation 

of all of the wells, no. It will be just the ones that we feel that we 

can do within that 5-year period. 

The CHAIRMAN. So you’re not trying to do a proposed strategy for 

fixing this problem. It’s just a strategy for what can be done over 

the next 5 years. Is that right? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. We’re looking at the near term. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. It seems that there is a disagreement about such 

a basic thing as how many wells have been plugged. I noticed that 

you say, Mr. Cribley, in your testimony that since 1952, 19 wells 
17 

have been plugged. The U.S. Navy plugged one well in 1952. The 

BLM began its plugging and has plugged 18 wells since then. 

Then when I get over here to the testimony of the other two witnesses, it doesn’t seem that there is agreement on that. Representative Millett says only 16 wells have been properly plugged. What 

explains the difference in opinion about the facts that we’re dealing 

with here? 

Is there a reason, Ms. Foerster, why you do not believe that the 

19 wells have been plugged that Mr. Cribley says have been 

plugged? 

Ms. FOERSTER. Chairman Bingaman, a well is considered properly plugged and abandoned to my satisfaction if it complies with 

the regulations of the State of Alaska. Only 16 wells do that, and 

7 of those wells were wells that aren’t considered in that list of 19 

that Mr. Cribley addresses. Seven of those wells he’s classified in 

the 24 that were transferred in the land swap. So that’s one of the 

problems. 

He’s also considering the 34 re-vegetated wells as properly abandoned. However, nothing has been done to address those wells. The 

Interior Department has written those wells off simply because 

there’s nothing left at the surface. 

Now, it is possible that the Interior Department could come back 

to us and demonstrate to us that those wells are of no concern. But 

that is the operator’s responsibility to come to this agency and say, 

‘‘Here is the technical data and the scientific proof that those wells 

are safe and secure.’’ No one has done that. We’re open to them to 

do that. 

But there are at least 5 wells that they’ve written off as properly 

plugged and abandoned, but none of those wells meet State of Alaska requirements. This is part of that getting on the same page that 

we need to do. 

But, I’m sorry, for the State of Alaska to consider a well plugged 

and abandoned, it has to meet our requirements. Our requirements 

were put in place to protect the environment, to protect human 

safety, to prevent migration of downhole fluids, and to protect 

ground waters that people waters that people might use. Only 16 

of the wells meet all of those requirements, and 7 of those are ones 

that aren’t part of his 19 because they’re in the land swap. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue on this issue of the data that has been conveyed. 

Mr. Cribley, you’ve indicated that you’ve gone through everything 

and have conveyed that, and now you’re waiting for a sit-down 

with AOGCC. I like sitting up here, because I can read the body 

language of not only the people that are testifying but oftentimes 

those that are in the audience who have a little bit of knowledge 

about what is going on, too. What I saw with the body language 

was there is real disagreement as to whether or not the full data 

has been conveyed, whether or not there is a good working relationship between BLM and AOGCC. 

The Chairman, I think, has appropriately queried on the issue of 

what has been satisfactorily plugged and abandoned according to 

State standards. So I’d like to spend just a little bit of time under-
18 

standing where we are with the two of you on either side of the 

table. 

Ms. Foerster, do you feel that you have the data that you need 

at this point in time to sit down with BLM and map forward a 

schedule, not only going forward, but addressing those wells that 

BLM considers to be complete and, in fact, the State of Alaska has 

said, ‘‘We don’t have the information to be able to sign off on that?’’ 

Ms. FOERSTER. Ranking Member Murkowski, the short answer is 

no. But the longer answer is we only have data on the wells that 

I described in my written and oral testimony. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. That was how many? 

Ms. FOERSTER. But—— 

Senator MURKOWSKI. How many wells was that that you described then? 

Ms. FOERSTER. We have downhole data on 61 wells and surface 

data on 55, and what that tells me is, at best, something in the 

process of transferring data has failed. When we get back to Anchorage, we’ll fix that, and the data that I’m missing, I’ll get. But 

the worst case scenario for that is they have given us all the data 

they’ve got. How can they assure us that wells that they have no 

data for aren’t a problem? That’s what really worries me. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Cribley, do we have situations where 

we simply don’t have data on certain wells? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. That’s probably true, yes. I mean, everything that 

we have is based on wells that have been been drilled for a large 

number of years, and a lot of those a long time ago. We don’t have 

all of the records, or we—well, what we have does not characterize 

fully everything that has been drilled out there. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So whose responsibility is that? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Ultimately, right now, it’s the Bureau of Land 

Management’s responsibility. But we have, as far as we know, captured all the data that is available on those wells, and some of 

those where it isn’t complete. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. If you’ve captured the data that is available, I can understand that. You have some wells that were drilled 

back in the mid to late 2040s. 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. But you also have a responsibility, then, to 

ensure that whatever activity that was conducted, however long 

ago it was, is then properly plugged, abandoned, and the government can walk away from that. Now, the fact that you don’t have 

the data doesn’t mean that you get to walk away from the responsibility. So how do you collect the data to provide to the State so that 

you can give the assurance that this has been properly remediated? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. That’s what we’re trying to go through right now— 

is sharing all of the data that we do have and then sitting down 

with the Commission and having a dialog on the status of all the 

wells so that we both have the same information and are in agreement with the numbers and the status of all those wells. One of 

the challenges that we have right now is that we haven’t come to 

agreement on that, and that’s why there’s a discrepancy and we 

need to resolve that. It is our commitment to work with the State 

on that issue, and if additional information needs to be collected, 
19 

and we come to agreement on that, we’ll do everything we can to 

try to achieve that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I appreciate your words. But I also recognize that it is literally taking an Act of Congress to get the Department of Interior, to get BLM to step up to its responsibility. That 

ought not to be the case. You know, I have brought this up to every 

secretary since I’ve been here in the Congress. 

Through the good work of Representative Millett and just pushing the legislature, we have managed to get the attention, but now 

we’re sitting here. We’ve got a hearing—and, again, I really appreciate what the chairman has done—and now we’re sitting down 

with a plan. 

But, you know, to be at a point where it is decades after the liability has been incurred—I mean, the regulations, the law, requires that you go in, you explore, you drill, you leave, you plug 

it and abandon it within 1 year. This just continues, the failed and 

broken promises that this Federal Government has made to the 

State of Alaska and just walked away from the promise. You leave 

it there sitting on the tundra, and you say, ‘‘Well, the budget 

doesn’t allow for it.’’ 

But our budget is able to allow for other things within the department that other people place priorities on. As Alaskans, we 

place a priority on taking care of our land. When the Federal Government comes in, they’ve got an obligation to work with us to 

make this happen. 

I don’t mean to pile on you, because I do believe that you have 

been working in good faith to try to make some progress here. But 

we’ve got some folks within the department that have not yet 

woken up to the responsibility, and we’re going to keep on them. 

Mr. Chairman, my time is up, but I’ve got some more specific 

questions. I’ll let my colleague from West Virginia proceed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski. As West Virginians, we have a lot of sympathy for 

Alaska trying to do all they can to provide energy for this great 

country and then being treated like a second class citizen. So we 

understand very well your frustration. With that, I know the royalties, or the severance tax that the Federal Government receives— 

I’m sure it’s quite substantial from Alaska. 

Is that correct, Ms. Millett? 

Ms. MILLETT. Senator Manchin, yes, $9.4 billion for offshore and 

NPRA lease sales since they’ve been leasing. 

Senator MANCHIN. So the wells that we’re talking about, basically—does anyone have a total cost of what it would cost to plug 

these wells? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. We have not made an estimate of the total cost. 

Senator MANCHIN. What type of formations are you in, or how 

deep are these wells? Are they all varied? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. They vary. Some of them are shallow. Some of the 

wells were as much as 20,000 feet deep. 

Senator MANCHIN. But as far as casing, the cost of casing, or cementing them in is about the same, no matter how deep or not, because you don’t—you’re basically going down below the surface to 

do that, correct? It’s all about the same. 
20 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. So it would probably be a very insignificant 

cost compared to the resources and revenue you receive. The only 

thing I would say and the frustration I would have—and I know 

that Senator Murkowski and other people who have a lot of natural 

resources in our State—resources in our State—is why is the government allowed to be treated differently than the private sector? 

If this would be a private company that has done what has been 

done by our own government, what do you think EPA would have 

done by now? 

Ms. Foerster. 

Ms. FOERSTER. I love this question, because if this—so thank 

you. If this situation—well, this situation would not exist if these 

wells had been drilled by a private company, because there is not 

an operator in Alaska that operates this way. However, let’s pretend that there were. An operator—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Would they be banned for life from doing 

business in Alaska? 

Ms. FOERSTER. The would be fined out the yah-zoo. Excuse me. 

They would be fined excessively, and we would refuse to approve 

permits to drill for them. They would never be allowed to operate. 

Then the landowner would likely be the State of Alaska, and the 

Department of Natural Resources would step in and take the land 

back away from them. 

Senator MANCHIN. Are any more exploratory wells being drilled 

by the government in Alaska? 

Ms. FOERSTER. The BLM and the USGS drilled a couple of wells 

near the city of Wainwright a few years ago. But as as of now, no. 

Senator MANCHIN. You, as the State, have no jurisdiction over 

the Federal Government preventing them—— 

Ms. FOERSTER. Yes, we do. 

Senator MANCHIN. Can you prevent them from drilling until they 

plug the others? I know you would do that with a private—with a 

private company, you would do that, correct? 

Ms. FOERSTER. With a private company, we would do that. So 

with the Federal Government, we would do everything we can. 

However, my attorneys tell me that the Feds trump State, and 

while we can find them to be in violation of our laws, we cannot 

fine them. We cannot exert our authority over them. All we can do 

is embarrass them in the court of public opinion and ask them 

nicely to be compliant. 

Senator MANCHIN. Have you asked the EPA to use all of their 

influence to try to get this corrected? 

Ms. FOERSTER. We have, and we’ve even spoken with an investigator for the EPA’s environmental crime section. He says that the 

statute of limitations has expired on these wells. I find that hard 

to believe since they’re still a problem, but that’s what we’ve been 

told. 

Senator MANCHIN. Do you have any comparison to how a private 

company has been treated, whether it be in Alaska Alaska or anywhere else in the country, and the statute of limitations allowed to 

expire, but they still go after them? Have you been able to compare 

that to what you’re getting told? 
21 

Ms. FOERSTER. We don’t have an operator in Alaska who behaves 

this way. But if they did, I guarantee you I would exert every bit 

of power and attention and energy I could to fixing the problem. 

Senator MANCHIN. I think you all can understand our frustration, especially in West Virginia, and what we go through every 

day with our own government. We just want a little partnership. 

I think that’s what the senator from Alaska—all of us—just work 

with us. We’ll be the best partner you’ve ever had. But, boy, when 

you’ve got to fight your government every day, it just—the frustration just grows and grows. 

So with that, I yield whatever time I might have back to my good 

friend from Alaska. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just make the obvious point that this is 

an issue that cries out for an earmark. Would my colleagues agree 

with that? I think anyone who is opposed to earmarks hasn’t been 

sitting in on this hearing. 

I’ll just defer to Senator Murkowski for her additional questions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward 

to working with you on that one. 

Ms. Foerster has presented and, I think, Representative Millett 

has also presented a couple of different options here. We will await 

the plan for how you approach the next 5 years. But there have 

been some suggestions that, as one course, you could transfer these 

wells to the State. You could provide through a leasing arrangement with a remediation requirement. 

Are there any serious discussions about these as possible action 

plans, Mr. Cribley? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. We haven’t had discussions with the State up to 

this point as far as looking at alternatives or options for dealing 

with this. I know that Ms. Foerster has presented this at different 

meetings and such, but we haven’t had a dialog specifically on that, 

no. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. Foerster or Representative Millett, do 

you care to comment? 

Ms. MILLETT. I actually did come down here in March and meet 

with local BLM officials and gave them all the options that we 

spoke of today, first with having them lease the land, retain ownership, and as a part of the lease agreement have the companies, the 

operators that lease the land, remediate the wells. It was a winwin. The revenues from the lease would go to the Federal Government. It would create jobs, and it would create a stable energy supply for stable energy supply for America. They didn’t want to have 

anything to do with that. 

I also asked them to convey the lands to the State and we would 

take care of the remediation, and they weren’t interested in that, 

either. So we’ve reached out to the BLM locally. We’ve reached out 

to them here in DC. At every turn, there is nothing but a plea of 

poverty about these wells, which is incredibly frustrating for me. 

We’ve given options. They seem realistic. They seem reasonable. So 

we just haven’t had any traction. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Cribley, do you know anything about— 

you say you haven’t been involved in any of these conversations. Do 

you know why the BLM would just reject out of hand any of these 

other options? 
22 

Mr. CRIBLEY. No. Like I say, I haven’t been directly involved 

with any of those conversations, and so I can’t really respond to 

what our response would be to those. But I am open to sit down 

with the State and also with our Washington representatives to 

have discussions on this as far as looking at what our options are 

within our authorities. I mean, we can only do so much with the 

authority that we have currently. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. It does cause me to question, though, that 

if you were to do this, either to turn it over to the State or turn 

it over through a leasing situation, if if then you wouldn’t have the 

1-year requirement to kick in and have, you know, an almost impossible task to remediate within the time period before whoever 

takes it over gets fined. The Federal Government has been able to 

sit there for 40 years. There’s no fine. There’s no consequence. 

There’s no nothing. 

But if you are able to find a fix, whoever might be willing to step 

forward could then be subject to a level of fine because they haven’t 

remediated it. Again, it goes to kind of the double standard that 

Senator Manchin has spoken to. Only the Federal Government can 

get away with this. 

So, Ms. Foerster, are you aware of whether there’s been any further conversations about other options? 

Ms. FOERSTER. The conversations that Representative Millett has 

had are the only ones I’m aware of. So no. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. All right. 

Mr. Cribley, I want to go back to a question that the chairman 

had asked about the 5-year plan. I have interpreted your comments 

to mean that you are going to work with AOGCC to identify what 

you believe to be the highest priority wells to move on first. You’ve 

indicated that 13—you’ve got a plan for 13 wells over the next 3 

seasons. So does your 5-year plan incorporate these 13 wells over 

3 seasons, so you’re really only working on 2 years after that? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Actually, you probably just corrected me, and my 

plan is 3 years, not 5 years. But what we’re looking at is looking 

at what we can do within the next 3 funding cycles and putting 

that together. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. What you can do within the next 3 funding 

cycles, assuming you don’t ask for anything more than you’ve typically asked for in the budget process, in the president’s budget? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. What we will be doing is putting together a plan 

on how and what we would do and what that cost would be. Then 

we would go through our budget process as far as submitting and 

trying to get support for funding of those remediation actions. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So 13 wells over 3 years out of 120. I think 

people can do the math. We’re going to be sitting here for a long 

while. You mentioned you’ve got a 2-year-old grandson. Do you 

think that this is a reasonable schedule? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. I guess we’re framing it within what we feel are 

reasonable capabilities or reasonable amounts of funding to ask for 

to do the work. Up to this point, since 2002, the Bureau has spent 

over $85 million, or almost $86 million, in the remediation of 18 

wells. The cost of remediation on the North Slope, as you well 

know, is know, is significant, and we’re trying to stay within reason 

as far as what we’re asking for from a budget perspective, espe-
23 

cially considering the environment that we’re working in right now 

with our budgets potentially declining. 

I mean, we can put a plan together as big as the sky. But, you 

know, the reasonableness of being able to secure that level of funding is probably remote, at least from our perspective. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I might be more sympathetic if you hadn’t received $9.4 billion from the lease sales within the NPRA. I mean, 

it just seems to me that you’ve got some money coming in, and 

you’re not willing to spend it on this. You’re willing to spend it in 

other budget categories. But where the responsibility lies—after 

you come in and take, you’re not willing to clean it up, even though 

you’ve gotten the lease sales. Maybe if we hadn’t seen some lease 

sales up there, it would be a different picture. 

But I don’t buy into this, you know, ‘‘Oh, poor us. We’ve got 

tough budget problems.’’ We’ve been helping you out in Alaska in 

considerable ways, and you’re walking away from the responsibility, and we’re not going to allow that. 

My time is over. I don’t know whether—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Just one quick question. 

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead, Senator Manchin. 

Senator MANCHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think, Ms. Foerster, you might be able to help me on this and 

maybe Ms. Millett on this, too, from the State Legislature. 

Ms. MILLETT. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. I don’t know how your money flows, because 

in West Virginia, we don’t have federally owned resources. Most of 

them are privately owned. Does your money flow basically from the 

Federal budget? Does it come directly to the State, and the Atate 

forwards on a check to the Federal Government for the severance 

tax you receive? If there was ABC Drilling Company leasing from 

the State on Federal land, how does that money flow? 

Ms. MILLETT. Senator Manchin, the Federal money flows from 

the operator to the Federal Government on Federal lands. From 

the State government—if an operator is on State land, it flows to 

the State government. So we never receive any revenue streams 

from the Federal Government on drilling or activity that’s on our 

Federal lands. So the money flows from—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I don’t think that’s correct. I don’t think 

that’s—the reason I say it’s not correct—I don’t think that anywhere else in the country that happens. I think that, basically, you 

do get resource—you should you should get revenue—— 

The CHAIRMAN. You get—50 percent of the revenue from Federal 

leases go to the State of Alaska. 

Ms. MILLETT. Right. So the Federal money—so are we talking 

about—— 

Senator MANCHIN. I’m just trying to follow the money here. 

Ms. MILLETT. OK. 

Senator MANCHIN. If you’re getting a 10 percent royalty—— 

Ms. MILLETT. Yes. 

Senator MANCHIN. OK. If a 10 percent royalty comes off, and ABC Drilling Company owes $1 million, does $500,000 go directly 

to the State and $500,000 to the Federal Government? Does $1 million go to the Federal Government and $500,000 back to the State? 

Or does $1 million go to the State and you forward on $500,000? 
24 

Ms. MILLETT. The taxes go from—the portion that is owned by 

Alaska—50 percent, so 50 percent and 50 percent—they each go to 

each entity. So the State would get 50 percent, and the Federal 

Government would get 50 percent. 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me ask Ms. Foerster. 

Ms. FOERSTER. I think you’re talking about royalties, and there’s 

no Federal land that’s getting royalties. Is that what you were asking about? 

Senator MANCHIN. The Federal Government doesn’t get royalties 

on—— 

Ms. FOERSTER. There’s no production on Federal land. 

Ms. MILLETT. Right. 

Senator MANCHIN. This is all on State land, then. 

Ms. FOERSTER. It’s all on State land, so there—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Let me ask you this, then. The only thing I’m 

saying is it doesn’t look like the government is going to come forward in any type of an expedient manner to fix the environmental 

problem that they caused. If the State took it upon itself to go forward with this and use your resources then withheld, basically, 

you’re basically front-loading it. But you’re going to take care of an 

environmental—I don’t think there’s a court in this country that 

you would lose—to get your money back from the Federal Government if you have to go out and do it. 

But if you sit here and wait, you’re going to do 3 a year or—it’s 

just not going to happen. You’re going to have to, if you can—and 

if we can support you some way, we’ll do it. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Senator Manchin, as good as that sounds and as 

eager as I am to fix this problem, the precedent that that would 

set is just horrifying, because then any operator who wanted to use 

the time value of money would say, ‘‘State, you go plug my wells, 

and when I’ve got a budget, I’ll pay budget, I’ll pay you back.’’ We 

just can’t set a precedent of fixing other people’s problems. 

Senator MANCHIN. I would assume that a private entity—you’re 

going to get bonding on that. They have to bond on the front end. 

If they don’t do it, then you use their bonding money—I would assume that’s how you all do your business. If not, I hope you do. I 

would encourage you to—— 

Ms. FOERSTER. The bonding that we have right now would not 

be sufficient to—— 

Senator MANCHIN. Then, you need to raise that. 

Ms. FOERSTER. We do. Yes, sir. You are exactly right. 

Senator MANCHIN. I can tell you there’s a way to fix that. I’m 

just trying to get you in a position to clean up for the sake of the 

country and the sake of Alaska a horrible environmental problem 

that’s not your fault. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Yes, sir. Again, I just hate to set precedents that 

would allow others to abuse. 

Senator MANCHIN. I got you. I understand. I’m just trying to— 

if we can get it figured out, because—Mr. Cribley? 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cribley. 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Just a point of clarification as far as receipts that have been received from oil and gas lease sales. The $9 billion figure they’re talking about includes both offshore leasing and leasing 

within the NPRA. In the last 10 years, in the leasing that we have 
25 

been doing in the NPRA, we have received $250 million of lease 

sales, and 50 percent of those funds go directly to the State. So, in fact, the Federal Government has received $125 million. 

Of that $125 million, the Federal Government has spent $86 million on remediation of the legacy wells in the NPRA. Now, the 

funds that come back from lease sales go directly to the Treasury, 

and then the Congress then appropriates those dollars. But as far 

as moneys received and moneys expended in the NPRA, we have 

expended significant resources to do the work that we’ve been able 

to do up to this point. 

The CHAIRMAN. Now, do the numbers that you just recited include the bonus bids? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. I believe so. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because the State gets 50 percent of those bonus 

bids, just as it gets 50 percent of the royalty from the production 

in the NPRA. 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Right. The other point of clarification is that there 

is no production at this date within—of oil and gas resources on 

Federal leases in the National Petroleum Reserve—— 

The CHAIRMAN. But there have been some bid sales. 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Yes. We have done sales. We’ve been doing sales 

for the last 10 years, and we have done extensive exploration work. 

But nothing has gone into production yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. But the bonus bids that have been received—the State is entitled to 50 percent of that—— 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Has received it. 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murkowski. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I have 3 more questions, and, hopefully, 

these will be quick. 

I believe it was you, Representative Millett, that mentioned that 

the price of remediation of these wells—there’s some discrepancy 

here, that BLM says it costs roughly $2 million to plug one of the 

wells, and North Slope Borough says it costs roughly $700,000. 

Why the discrepancy—the very wide discrepancy between the two? 

Can you speak to that, or maybe Ms. Foerster? 

Ms. MILLETT. Ranking Member Murkowski, $86 million for 18 

wells is what the BLM testified to today. The North Slope Borough 

did 7 wells at the cost of about $300,000 each well. So there is a 

big discrepancy, and I think that’s an incredibly good question to 

ask the BLM—why their costs are so high when private sector can 

go out and plug wells for just a fraction of that. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Cribley. 

Mr. CRIBLEY. The records that we’ve got right now—the costs for 

remediation vary anywhere—the highest is about $25 million, anywhere down to $1.4 million for individual wells. The reason for the 

discrepancy is that the wells that the borough are remediating are 

within driving distance or can be accessed easily from the borough, 

and they can do that year round. Most of the wells that we are remediating are in very isolated regions of the National Petroleum 

Reserve, and most of the work that we do out there can only be 

done during the winter. As any oil and gas company will tell you, 

production cost on the North Slope is extremely expensive and is 
26 

very time sensitive. It involves stationing or positioning equipment, 

and then getting in and doing the work during the wintertime, and 

then positioning so you can take out hazardous materials, and then 

transporting them by barge, you know, through the Arctic Ocean 

down to the West Coast for proper disposal. 

So the work that we’re doing is very difficult and very challenging. I think we have done a very excellent job in the work that 

we’ve done up to this point. But our challenge and part of the problem is just the isolation and the conditions that we operate in on 

the North Slope. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. When you determine which well to move to 

next in terms of the remediation and setting forward this plan— 

you’ve got your 13 wells proposed over the next 3 years—are you 

prioritizing them based on the hazards or the threats that they 

present to the environment, or are you prioritizing them because 

you’ve got a few that are closer together where you can get some 

efficiencies with your costs as you work to plug them? Do you 

prioritize them because you can do one cheaper than the next and 

not use up your whole budget? You can click off 1 or 2 because 

they’re easy, and you save the tough ones for later that may be a 

greater environmental threat? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. I think, actually, it’s both. The first priority, as far 

as when we’re selecting wells, is based on the environmental or 

health and safety risks, and those are the ones that we deal with 

or treat first. As we identify those, we try to see if there are any 

wells adjacent to or associated to those that we can also deal with 

while we’re in that area just to try to reduce our overhead cost and 

try to be as efficient as possible and try to basically get the biggest 

bang for our buck when we are mobilizing on the ground in the 

NPRA. 

But the primary driver is the risk involved, and those are where 

we’re going first. That’s one of the things that we need to come to 

agreement on with AOGCC—is which ones—what that list looks 

like so that we’re focusing on what everybody agrees are the most 

important wells. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Ms. Foerster. 

Ms. FOERSTER. Thank you, Ranking Member Murkowski. I’d like 

to add a little bit. First, at the working level, the AOGCC and the 

BLM staffers have a very good working relationship. That was 

questioned earlier. We’re all Alaskans and we’re all trying to 

achieve the same goal, I think. 

But there are some strategies that we can employ that have not 

been employed in the past that I think contribute to the high relative cost of the BLM’s cleanup. First, mobilization and demobilization of equipment is a large portion of the cost. So if you pick one 

well at a time, and you do that mobe and de-mobe on that well and 

ignore the wells that are nearby and say, ‘‘Get you later,’’ then you 

will incur those same mobe and de-mobe costs every time you go 

out, whereas if you can get every well in the area, all of those wells 

can share that cost. 

That’s one of the things that the North Slope Borough did, and 

that’s one of the reasons that their costs were so much lower. They 

used a rig that they had in the area to do all of the work. 
27 

Another thing that will lower the cost is if you don’t wait until 

you have a crisis, if you don’t wait until the well is about to fall 

into the Arctic Ocean, or something like that that just astronomically adds to the cost, then you can cut down your cost. If you don’t 

go in assuming that a particular type of well is not going to be a 

problem and then get surprised when it is, and then you start to 

have to fight a blowout, then you can reduce your cost. 

So there’s a lot of things that we can do. If we work together, 

get a good understanding of what the condition of those wells is, 

we can drive down the cost. 

Another example—some of these wells can likely be remediated 

using a coiled tubing unit rather than a drilling rig. Coiled tubing 

units are cheaper. 

My agency is anxious to work with Mr. Cribley’s, and we will 

work on the schedule that he has outlined. I promise you we’re 

going to do everything we can to do it right, to do it safely, and 

to do it as efficiently and effectively and cost consciously as possible. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Do you think that 13 wells over the next 

3 seasons is reasonable? 

Ms. FOERSTER. It depends on your definition of reasonable. Putting my hat on as a regulator, heck no, it’s not reasonable. If an 

operator were to come to me and say, ‘‘We’ve got 120 wells that are 

out of compliance with your your regulation, and we think it’s reasonable to spend the next 5 years doing 13 of them, and we’ll follow 

that schedule until you’re dead,’’ no, I would not consider that reasonable. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. Mr. Cribley, one further question for you. 

As you’re aware, the public comment period on the NPRA management plan has just closed out. There’s 4 alternatives. Some of them 

have some proposals within the alternatives that place some serious restrictions on activity within the Petroleum Reserve. 

Is it your understanding whether or not the NPRA management 

plan, as is being considered, would have any impact or restrict 

BLM’s ability to move in and do any of the remediation or the 

cleanup on any of these outstanding wells? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. There won’t be any decisions in the plan that 

would limit us or prevent us from doing remediation on legacy 

wells. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. So regardless of what happens with the 

NPRA management plan, BLM is assured that—not only what 

we’re talking about here today, with a proposal of 13 wells over 3 

seasons—that you wouldn’t be restricting or limiting in any way 

this cleanup? 

Mr. CRIBLEY. Yes. 

Senator MURKOWSKI. I thank the chairman for the focus that he 

has given this issue this morning. I am very hopeful that as a consequence of what has been shared today we will have an accelerated process to identify the priorities in a way that the State, 

through the AOGCC, is satisfied, that the BLM recognizes that 

there is an imperative, that there is an urgency to this, because 

from the Alaskans’ perspective, this is the absolute height of hypocrisy when we hold our private operators to the highest of standards 
28 

and our Federal Government can not only reject those standards 

but literally walk away from their level of responsibility. 

It reflects poorly on us as a government. I think, as a State, 

we’ve got an obligation to stand up, to push back, and make this 

right. I don’t think it’s the responsibility of the State to pick up the 

tab on this if the Feds did this, and so how we work it out is going 

to be critically important. 

I am not one who is willing to have to drag folks into a committee hearing on an annual basis to say, ‘‘Where are we?’’ I’m still 

doing that with our land conveyances 50 years after statehood, because that’s another promise that was not kept. The reason they 

say they can’t do it is because we don’t have the budget. You know, 

easy come, easy go. 

It’s not acceptable, and I think we all recognize it’s not acceptable. So I will work on the appropriations side to do what I can, 

but I need this administration to place a priority on it, to place the 

priority in the budget and make good on its obligations. 

So I would hope that we could get a report back from your offices, Mr. Cribley, and working with you, Ms. Foerster, sometime 

after September after you have advanced a schedule. But I think 

we need a game plan on this, because up to this point in time, it’s 

been absolutely insufficient, inadequate, and an embarrassment to 

the Federal Government. 

So with that, I thank you again, all of you, for making the flight 

back. We’ll see you back in Alaska. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. We thank you all for coming, and that will conclude our hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 10:46 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

[The following statement was received for the record.] 

STATEMENT OF CHARLOTTE BROWER, MAYOR, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, AK 

Chairman Bingaman, Senator Murkowski, members of the committee. I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to provide comments for your hearing on ‘‘Remediation of Federal Legacy Wells in the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska.’’ 

Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and staff of the Energy and Natural Resources 

Committee for your tireless efforts to address an issue that has been of concern to 

our people for almost 70 years—the cleanup and remediation of exploration activity 

in the NPR-A. 

I also want to thank the Alaska House of Representatives for their unanimous 

passage of House Joint Resolution 29, calling on the federal Bureau of Land Management 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. 

The Sponsors of the bill, specifically Representative Millett recognized that these 

wells pose significant risk to ground water, vegetation, waterfowl, land and sea 

mammals, and fish which the people of the North Slope have depended on for thousands of years. 

This issue is of concern to the entire State and I look forward to working with 

the legislature, our Governor, and of course you, Senator Murkowski, and this committee regarding the remediation of the legacy wells. 

I was recently elected to this office but I’ve been a resident of the North Slope 

for 40 years. This week the North Slope Borough is celebrating its 40th Anniversary 

as a local municipal government. I am the wife of a whaling captain and grandmother to 23 grandchildren. My family and my people rely on the land and waters 
29 

of the North Slope for our survival. My experience tells me that the best approach 

to solving problems is to work together. 

In that vein, my administration is based on three simple concepts: 

• The people of the North Slope need a seat at the table in Arctic planning; 

• The people of the North Slope deserve a fair and stable share of the revenues 

generated from the development; and 

• The development must find ways to preserve the culture and communities of 

the North Slope. 

As a cooperating agency with the BLM in the current EIS process that will determine the future management of the NPR-A, the North Slope Borough must be a 

part of the process to prioritize and address the impacts of oil and gas exploration. 

Just a few months ago, I was in Washington DC and met with then-Director Abbey 

and raised our issues of concern with this process of cleaning up the ‘‘legacy wells’’ 

left behind after the Navy and USGS exploration process. He stated that BLM is 

committed to capping these wells, but it is an ‘‘unfunded mandate’’. 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 the land owner. Residents 

want to develop the resources, but they want to do so responsibly. 

Recently the State of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC) 

made the following comments: 

All legacy wells are or have been out of compliance with multiple Alaska 

regulations. 

Although by no means exhaustive, the following summarizes the most 

troubling issues: 

Proper plugging and abandonment of wells is governed by Article 2 of the 

AOGCC’s regulations, 20 AAC 25.105, et seq. The purposes of properly 

plugging and abandoning wells include public safety, protection of the environment, and protection of sources of drinking water. 

Delaying the plugging and abandonment has already caused several of 

the wells to be ‘‘lost’’ due to subsidence and other normal earth movement. 

Two wells are at the bottom of what subsidence and snow melt have now 

turned into lakes and a third has been buried in a landslide. Additional 

wells simply can no longer be found, with no explanation for why. Postponing abandonment of the remaining wells puts them at risk of also becoming ‘‘lost.’’ 

Allowing these unsafe and unsightly wells to litter Alaska’s wilderness 

while threatening both public safety and the environment is unacceptable. 

Nonetheless, BLM has only plugged and abandoned approximately ten of 

the 137 wells. 

If these wells were operated by an oil company, the AOGCC would force 

compliance with its regulations and impose fines for any non-compliance. 

While the AOGCC can find BLM to be in violation of AOGCC regulations, 

the AOGCC has no legal authority to force the Department of the Interior 

into compliance. 

The Federal Government should provide adequate funding specifically 

designated for the purpose of bringing the legacy wells into regulatory compliance. 

Additionally, two weeks ago, a spokesperson for the BLM said that the Iko Bay 

#1 well near Barrow is leaking gas and is at the top of the agency’s list of wells 

that need to be plugged. We believe that BLM is responsible to do this work, but 

in their 2004 ‘‘Alaska Legacy Wells Summary Report: National Petroleum ReserveAlaska’’ it states that 33 wells conveyed to the North Slope Borough under the Barrow Gas Field Act of 1984 or to Arctic Slope Regional Corporation are out of BLM’s 

jurisdiction. We believe that the BLM is also responsible for these legacy wells too. 

This is an issue that needs to be addressed. And we can resolve it by working together. 

Inupiat on the North Slope have always viewed the world through a different cultural lens, and sometimes that has led to a conclusion that we are anti-development. 

When we express a concern regarding local development (past or present) it’s for 

the same reasons that any other community might have when development occurs 

in their backyard. In the past we have aggressively supported opening many of the 

areas that were closed to development, in fact we continually assist with visits by 

political and media delegations. We have accommodated NPR-A development, except 

in an area around Teshekpuk Lake, where valuable wildlife habitat and subsistence 
30 

activities have historically taken precedence. We supported the bridge over the 

Niglik channel and see it as a gateway to further NPR-A development. We also recognize that NPR-A development could be a large contributor to future North Slope 

production, but we must be partners in maintaining the integrity and vitality of all 

resources. 

Just the other day, Secretary Salazar issued a press release related to the Norway 

Arctic Roundtable. He said the Arctic ‘‘is a place development can only safely expand if we also expand our understanding through science and experience.’’ He went 

on to say that that is why the Arctic demands it own approach. ‘‘We have to listen 

to each other as global partners and we must listen to local communities. We have 

to cooperate in our planning. And we must always put caution and safety first.’’ 

Let me be clear, my administration supports responsible oil and gas development, 

and the broad goal of the North Slope Borough is to maintain a healthy environment supporting Inupiat subsistence practices while at the same time promoting 

economic growth and responsible resource development. We support responsible development, particularly when reasonable mitigation measures are applied to minimize subsistence and socio-cultural impacts. 

The abandoned wells can have a real and direct effect on the health and welfare 

of all of our residents, and especially the youth in our communities. In the past, 

we’ve seen the scars left behind on the tundra and the waste generated from early 

development littering the areas we rely on. There is a connection with subsistence 

hunting and the negative impacts related to decreased hunting success. The passage 

of the subsistence way of life to younger generations hinges on successful hunts, and 

the presence of a healthy stock to hunt. It is both a safety hazard and a health hazard. 

We have had many good examples of working together to open the NPR-A to oil 

and gas development. You may recall the issue of a bridge across the Colville River 

at the Niglik channel to CD-5, ConocoPhillip’s western expansion of the Alpine field 

development. Working together with residents of Nuiqsut, local corporations, the 

Federal and State agencies, a solution was found. 

The 2004 report mentioned above offers an example of a future opportunity to 

work together—the concept of building staging areas with airstrips and storage pads 

to facilitate development of infrastructure in remote areas of the leased acreage. 

These staging areas would have the potential to also allow BLM’s future remediation work associated with the legacy wells. By working with our Departments of 

Planning and Wildlife Management, we could assist in making recommendations for 

the location of these staging areas, continuing our support of environmentally responsible development of the NPR-A and expediting the cleanup of the legacy sites. 

There have also been cases that didn’t work out as well as planned. In 1994, the 

Umiat area was considered ‘‘cleaned up’’ and was the subject of a proposed FONSI. 

The NSB just happened to have students and staff at Umiat that summer. At the 

time, witnesses recorded on video, barrels of waste sloughing out of the river bank, 

proving the cleanup was not yet complete. Had it not been for our insistence that 

the job was not yet done, the wells around Umiat might very well remain hazards 

to the environment and our food supply. For nearly a decade following this event, 

residents of Nuiqsut feared contamination of the fish they rely on from the Colville 

River. 

When BP and Arco were proposing a merger in 1999, many issues came up about 

commercial concerns, but we raised issues about environmental and community concerns. ‘‘Orphaned sites’’ were identified for clean up and industry agreed to work 

with State and local representatives to collaboratively address our concerns. The 

downside to the cleanup efforts, just like the legacy well program, was that it was 

subject to limited funding—$10 million. A cleanup/restoration project should not be 

limited by its expense alone, particularly when human health impacts have been 

identified. What cost do we place on our health and safety? 

The 2006 Northeast NPR-A Supplemental IAP/EIS identified key issues including 

‘‘control of contaminant-related health risk’’. A new stipulation was set out requiring 

an initial survey that should examine species and habitat potentially impacted by 

contaminants by lessee’s proposed developments. This addressed new development. 

We need the BLM to apply the same standard to all historic activity—including the 

work done by the Navy, Air Force, USGS and Husky Oil under contract to the federal government as part of the original NPR-A exploration efforts. 

‘‘Contaminant containment monitoring’’ and ‘‘Mitigation of contaminant impacts 

on subsistence’’ are not negotiable for us. The Federal government must find a way 

to provide funding to accomplish this effort, and it should not affect the NPR-A Impact Aid grant program. The BLM retains 50% of the revenues from rents, bonuses 

and royalties associated with NPR-A leasing and development. These funds only ac-
31 

count for annual revenue of about $4.5 million. Additional funding is necessary to 

do this right. 

The residents of the NPR-A (and the North Slope Borough) that rely on the planning area for subsistence must be assured that they are not exposed to harmful levels of oil-development associated contaminants, and that they will be protected 

against a range of contaminant-associated disorders. Reassurance to our communities of continued safety of subsistence resources will foster the continued viability 

of the subsistence diet and way of life. It will also reinforce our common goal of environmentally responsible development of the oil and gas resources in the area. This 

we can do—by working together. 

Quyanaqpak (Thank you very much) for the opportunity to address you today. 

(33) 

APPENDIX 

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

RESPONSE OF REPRESENTATIVE CHARISSE MILLETT TO QUESTION FROM

SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

Question 1. There was some confusion during the hearing as to whether Alaska 

receives royalty payments from the NPR-A. Please state for the record whether, and 

to what extent, federal leases have yielded royalty payments to the State of Alaska 

and whether any revenue is derived from lease sales, bonus bids, or production royalties. 

Answer. Under federal law 42 U.S.C. Chapter 78, Section 6506a, revenue from 

lease sales from the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska are equally divided between the federal government and the State of Alaska. 

Alaska’s portion is deposited into the NPR-A Impact Mitigation Program. Created 

by the Alaska Legislature in 1984 (AS 37.05.530), the program provides grants to 

communities most directly impacted by oil and gas development. Funds we also distributed to the Alaska Permanent Fund, the Public School Trust and the General 

Fund. 

As a result of a lawsuit (Barrow v. State) brought against the state by Barrow, 

Wainwright and the North Slope Borough, the state was required to rework the distribution formula to make the impacted communities first priority. 

Because there is no oil or gas production in the NPR-A at this time, the State 

of Alaska does not receive any production royalties. 

RESPONSE OF CATHY FOERSTER TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. There was some confusion during the hearing as to whether Alaska 

receives royalty payments from the NPR-A. Please state for the record whether, and 

to what extent, federal leases have yielded royalty payments to the State of Alaska 

and whether any revenue is derived from lease sales, bonusbids, or production royalties. 

Answer. The State of Alaska receives from the Federal Government a portion of 

the revenues for lease sales, bonus bids, production royalties and rentals on federal 

lands within the state. This portion varies, depending on the location, as follows: 

Three to six miles offshore: 27% 

Beyond six miles offshore: 0% 

Onshore Cook Inlet: 90 to 100% 

NPR-A: 50% 

There is production, and thus royalty payment, from the offshore three-to-six-mile 

area and from federal lands onshore Cook Inlet. There is no production, and thus 

no royalty payment, from NPR-A or offshore beyond six miles. 

RESPONSES OF BUD CRIBLEY TO QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR BINGAMAN

Arctic Conditions 

Question 1. Are there any aspects of operating in the Arctic environment that 

make it more difficult to remediate the legacy wells? 

Answer. Yes. These wells are located in remote parts of Alaska where work is performed in extreme conditions. These sites can be several hundred miles from the 

town of Deadhorse, which is the principal supply depot and nearest developed community. Access into the NPR-A for well-plugging and remediation activities is limited to overland travel in the winter to protect tundra vegetation and because the 

tundra bog will not support overland travel or infrastructure in the summer months. 
34 

However, winter temperatures routinely reach -40 degrees Fahrenheit, there is very 

little daylight during this season, and mobilization efforts during the winter months 

are extremely difficult. Self-sufficient camps are transported to these sites via ice 

roads, offshore sea ice, and snow packed roads. Fuel and provisions require constant 

resupply, and all specialized equipment needs to be winterized for arctic conditions. 

Funding 

Question 2. Can you please describe for us the Federal funding available for the 

remediation of the legacy wells? Answer. To date, $85.9 million has been spent to plug and remediate 18 legacy 

wells. As shown in the table below, funding for this work has come from the annual 

appropriations of the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior 

and from supplemental appropriations under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). In FY 2005 and FY 2009, the Secretary of the Interior 

used emergency transfer authority to fund these activities. The FY 2013 President’s 

Budget includes $1.0 million for the legacy wells. 

Year Activity Amount Source 

2002 Army Corps of Engineers plug and abandon Umiat #2 and #5 $25 Million Defense Appropriation 

2004 BLM plugged Umiat 

#3, #4, #8 and #10 

$1.4 Million Interior Appropriation 

2005 BLM plugged the 

J.W. Dalton Well 

$8.9 Million(including $7.5 

Million emergency transfer) 

Interior Appropriation 

2006 BLM plugged 5 wells 

in the Simpson Peninsula 

$1.8 Million Interior Appropriation 

2008 BLM plugged the 

East Teshekpuk 

Lake well 

$12 Million Interior Appropriation 

2009 BLM plugged the 

Atigaru Point #1 well 

$14 Million (including $8.9 

Million emergency transfer) 

Interior Appropriation 

2010 BLM plugged the 

Drew Point #1 well 

$16.8 Million ARRA 

2011 BLM plugged the 

Umiat #9 well 

$2.5 Million Interior Appropriation 

2012 BLM is plugged 

Umiat #6 and #7 

wells 

$3.5 Million Interior Appropriation 

Question 2a. How much money would be necessary to remediate the remaining 

NPR-A legacy wells? 

Answer. To date, $85.9 million has been spent to plug and remediate 18 legacy 

wells. The cost of plugging and remediating individual well sites varies due to the 

location and type of work needed to plug a well or remediate the site, and has 

ranged from several hundred thousand dollars to $16.8 million. Project costs include 

cleanup, transport and disposal of reserve pit and other solids waste in addition to 

the costs of actually plugging wells, especially those threatened by coastal erosion. 

In circumstances where well sites are in extremely remote locations, the costs of 

transporting equipment and wastes collected at these sites and disposing of it properly is very expensive. 

In 2004, the BLM completed a comprehensive assessment and report of the legacy 

wells in the NPR-A. This report was shared with the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (AOGCC). The BLM prepared a strategic plan to prioritize the remediation of the priority wells identified in the report, in addition to those wells 

being threatened by coastal erosion. With the completion of the upcoming Iko Bay 

project, which is anticipated for the winter of 2013-2014 (pending availability of adequate funds), all high priority wells that were identified in the 2004 report will be 

plugged. The BLM is preparing an update to the report based on field inspections 

over the last several field seasons, and is working closely with the AOGCC to come 
35 

to agreement on the actions needed or warranted for the remaining wells. The 

AOGCC is reviewing BLM well file information, with a goal of completion in the 

next few months. Once the BLM receives feedback from the AOGCC, the BLM can 

develop a reasonable cost estimate for the remaining work. 

Number of Legacy Wells 

Question 3. Your testimony indicates that of the original 136 wells and boreholes, 

there are 39 unplugged wells, as well as 2 that have not been located. However, 

Commissioner Foerster’s statement indicates that only 9 of the 136 wells and well 

sites have been properly addressed by the BLM. Could you please explain for us the 

discrepancy in these numbers? 

Answer. The following table is the current BLM accounting of the 136 legacy 

wells: 

Status Tally Action 

Wells that are plugged *19 

Not under BLM’s jurisdiction 24 No BLM Action 

Not under BLM’s jurisdiction (USGS) 18 Final disposition to be determined 

Uncased geologic core tests 34 No BLM Action 

Wells without accurate GPS coordinates 2 Monitoring area 

Remaining unplugged wells 39 Monitoring and Prioritizing 

Well Total 136 

* Includes one well plugged by the U.S. Navy in 1952 and two wells plugged by the Army 

Corps of Engineers. BLM has plugged 16 wells, including remediating contaminated soils where 

necessary and removing well site debris. 

The BLM has plugged 16 wells, the Army Corps of Engineers plugged two wells 

and one well was plugged by the U.S. Navy in 1952. Nine of these wells were permanently plugged as Commissioner Foerster notes. The BLM has plugged an additional nine wells with surface plugs. These plugs prevent migration of any material 

to the surface and ensure that no materials are introduced in the well bore. The 

AOGCC considers these temporarily plugged. The BLM continues to meet with the 

AOGCC to discuss technical issues, share data, and work towards an agreement on 

the status of the wells and develop future actions. 

Commissioner Foerster’s numbers do not take into account 24 wells that were 

transferred out of Federal ownership to the North Slope borough or to Native Corporations as part of the Barrow Gas Field Transfer Act of 1984 (P.L. 98-366); the 

one well plugged by the U.S. Navy in 1952; 18 wells that are partially plugged and 

currently operated by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for monitoring efforts; and 

34 uncased geologic bore holes and foundation test holes drilled by the U.S. Navy 

in the 1940s. 

Question 3a. How many wells have been plugged and remediated to date? 

Answer. A total of 19 wells have been plugged. Of that number, the U.S. Navy 

plugged one well in 1952, the BLM plugged 16 wells, including remediating contaminated soils where necessary and removing well site debris, and the Army Corps 

of Engineers plugged 2 wells. An additional 18 wells are partially plugged and are 

used and managed by the USGS as climate change monitoring wells. 

Question 3b. Please also describe for us the wells that are used currently by the 

USGS. 

Answer. There are 18 wells that were drilled in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

These are generally the deeper drilled wells that range from a depth of 4,000 to 

20,000 feet deep. These wells have been properly plugged back to a depth of approximately 2,000 feet deep. USGS uses the unplugged interval from the surface to 2,000 

feet to monitor changes in depth of permafrost as part of their climate change research. These 18 wells are scattered throughout the NPR-A, but are predominately 

in the northern portion of the reserve. 

Work with the State of Alaska 

Question 4. Are you making efforts to work with the State of Alaska on this issue? 

If so, please describe. 

Answer. Yes. The BLM invites state inspectors on all annual surface inspections 

of the legacy wells, and BLM has asked the AOGCC to provide any input on priorities for site visits. The BLM also invites the AOGCC to witness all plugging efforts 

conducted by the BLM. The BLM has shared all available well file information with 
36 

the AOGCC to reach concurrence with the AOGCC on the number of wells present, 

the current status of these wells, and the status of the wells outside BLM’s jurisdiction. 

As a matter of practice, the BLM provides Sundry Notices to the AOGCC on all 

plugging and abandonment efforts to ensure that the BLM is in compliance with 

state regulations. (A Sundry Notice is a form to evaluate proposed changes to the 

operation of a well after it has already been permitted.) 

For matters where there is a technical question or opinion concerning the final 

plugging of the well, as in the case of the nine wells that the state considers ‘‘temporarily plugged,’’ BLM meets with AOGCC to discuss the well condition and future 

actions that may be warranted. 

The BLM anticipates a hearing with the AOGCC to review the status of 34 

uncased or partially cased boreholes drilled for geologic strata and permafrost research. The geologic and foundation core tests are uncased and are shallow (from 

less than 50 feet deep to 1,600 feet) boreholes. Core tests are naturally reclaimed 

and are indistinguishable from the natural environment. The BLM intends to request that the AOGCC remove the boreholes from their list of legacy wells. 

The BLM is preparing an updated report that summarizes site visits and risk assessments conducted over the past two field seasons, which will be provided to the 

State once finalized. The BLM has solicited State input concerning prioritization of 

wells and upcoming projects. 

Failure to Remediate 

Question 5. Why has the BLM failed to remediate the NPRA legacy wells to date? 

Answer. BLM has not failed to remediate all legacy wells: this process is ongoing. 

The BLM has adopted a risk-based approach to remediation of the most critical legacy wells and conducts an active monitoring program to determine if well or environmental conditions have changed at these sites. The BLM’s 2004 Strategic Plan 

and the soon-to-be completed Strategic Plan Update are both risk-based approaches 

that consider technical issues and availability of funding. BLM’s active monitoring 

program is also an important element in addressing the legacy well issue and BLM 

has taken action quickly when the on-the-ground situation warranted immediate action to prevent catastrophic failure that would threaten health and safety and harm 

the environment. For example, BLM’s periodic monitoring efforts showed that several wells were threatened by coastal erosion, the J.W. Dalton (in 2005) and the 

Atigaru well (in 2009), and needed immediate remediation. As the remediation work 

for these two wells was costly and there was not time to request money through 

the normal appropriations process, the Department used an emergency funding 

transfer mechanism authorized by the Interior Appropriations Act. This rarely-used 

mechanism allows the Secretary to transfer funds from other BLM and DOI accounts only in very specific emergency situations, and other projects were delayed 

because of the transfer. 

As discussed in the answer to the second part of question 2, the BLM has taken 

a risk-based approach to the issue. In 2004, the BLM completed a comprehensive 

assessment and report of the legacy wells in the NPR-A. The BLM prepared a strategic plan to prioritize the remediation of the priority wells identified in the report, 

in addition to those wells being threatened by coastal erosion. Pending available 

funding and timing of contracting, completion of the Iko Bay project, which is anticipated for the winter of 2013-2014, all high priority wells that were identified in the 

2004 report will be plugged. Additionally, the BLM has remediated all reserve pits 

that remained as a result of legacy well drilling activity consistent with Federal and 

State regulations. 

In 2010, BLM determined that an update to the 2004 report was warranted and 

has revisited the sites of all the legacy wells during 2010-2012. The new report, 

which BLM expects to complete by the end of 2012, will provide comprehensive updated well and site condition information and provide the basis for further strategic 

planning of legacy well remediation in coordination with AOGCC. 

The efforts to plug and remediate abandoned wells are extraordinarily expensive 

due to the fact that the wells are located in remote parts of Alaska where work is 

performed in extreme conditions, often several hundred miles from a primary supply 

depot and nearest developed community. To date, BLM has spent $85.9 million to 

plug and remediate 18 legacy wells with the cost of plugging and remediating individual well sites ranging from several hundred thousand dollars to $16.8 million. 

Securing adequate and timely funding to complete remediation efforts in extreme 

arctic conditions is the limiting factor to proceeding more quickly with additional 

remediation efforts. 

Question 5a. What are your plans to address this problem going forward? 
37 

Answer. The BLM expects to complete an updated Legacy Well Summary Report 

and a Strategic Plan in the next few months. The updated Strategic Plan will outline the agency’s priorities for plugging the remaining legacy well sites. In the 

meantime, the BLM has developed a short-term strategy to address 13 legacy wells 

over three seasons. The first step in the short-term strategy will be the remediation 

of the Iko Bay well and two nearby wells over the winter of 2013-2014, pending 

availability of adequate funds to complete the project. 

Abandoned Wells in the Lower 48 

Question 6. While I understand that in the Lower 48 the wells were not drilled 

by the Federal Government, there are many orphaned and abandoned wells on Federal lands in states such as New Mexico that need to be plugged. How much funding 

does BLM have available for this purpose on an annual basis? 

Answer. The BLM refers to an abandoned well as a non-producing well that has 

been properly plugged, the site reclaimed to its original condition, and abandoned 

for purposes of oil and gas development. The BLM refers to an orphaned well as 

a non-producing well on Federal land that is not associated with a responsible or 

liable party and for which there is not sufficient bond coverage for plugging and surface restoration costs. 

The BLM has worked diligently with industry and state and local governments 

to assure that non-producing wells are properly remediated and the site reclaimed 

by the responsible party. The BLM works with our cooperators including existing 

lease holders, oil and gas producers, and local and state governments in partnership 

to minimize orphaned well occurrence and mitigate orphaned well conditions. 

The BLM works on a case-by-case basis to address the issue of orphaned wells. 

The amount expended by the BLM for the isolated cases of orphaned well remediation and site reclamation varies from year to year but ranges from approximately 

$75,000 to $125,000 annually of appropriated funds to cover operation needs of well 

plugging and abandonment. Additional funds for orphan well remediation come from 

industry, state funds raised through permit fees for orphaned well remediation, and 

forfeited bond revenues. 

RESPONSE OF BUD CRIBLEY TO QUESTION FROM SENATOR MURKOWSKI

Question 1. What regulatory and legal mechanisms are available to the BLM in 

cases where a leaseholder or operator maintains operations in a manner which is 

out of compliance with environmental standards in a chronic or repeated manner 

on multiple oil or gas wells? 

Answer. The BLM’s regulations for management and oversight of oil and gas operations are contained in 43 CFR 3160, Onshore Oil and Gas Operations. Subpart 

3163 of these regulations addresses Noncompliance, Assessments, and Penalties. As 

noted in these regulations, the establishment and forfeiture of the oil and gas bond 

may be used for addressing repeat violations. Without a bond, a lessee may not operate a Federal or Indian oil and gas lease. 

Æ